331.1 

J983t 


DATE  DUE 

ft  Q ? 

JOB 

, 

, J 

[Jew  J 

C\N  IT  o h 

GAYLORD 

PRINTED  IN  U.S.A. 

Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2017  with  funding  from 

University  of  Illinois  Urbana-Champaign  Alternates 


https://archive.org/details/testimonyofhermaOOunit 


Ill  inois  Coal  Operators  Association 

OFFICE,  IOO2-3  ELLSWORTH  .TUILDING 

355  DEARBORN  STREET,  CHICAGO,  ILL. 

OFFICERS 

O.  L.  Garrison,  ----- President 

J.  A.  Agee, - Vice-President 

E.  T.  Bent, -------  Secretary-Treasurer 

C.  L.  Scroggs, Recording  Secretary 

EXECUTIVE  COMMITTEE  N \ 4 

O.  L.  Garrison,  Chairman  ) y L\ 

/%  /v  \ 

C.  L.  Scroggs,  Secretary 

First  District — 

H.  N.  Taylor,  A.  L.  Sweet,  S.  M.  Dalzell 
Second  District — 

J.  H.  Garaghty,  W.  W.  Keefer 
Third  District— 

P.  G.  Matheny,  Lee  Kincaid,  Edwards  Brown 
Fourth  District— 

D.  D.  Shumway,  F.  W.  Lukins,  Walter  Puterbaugh 
Fijth  District — 

C.  F.  Parker,  J.  C.  Muren,  A.  J.  Moorshead 
Sixth  District — 

F.  D.  Secor,  C.  E.  Hull,  S.  B.  Eaton 

Seventh  District — 

F.  S.  Peabody,  M.  C.  Wright 

Eighth  District — 

Henry  Long,  Richard  Newsam,  G.  W.  Traer 
Ninth  District — 

Randolph  Smith,  E.  C.  Donk,  Geo.  T.  Cutts 

THE  COMMISSION 

Herman  Justi, -----  Commissioner 

C.  L.  Scroggs, Secretary  of  Commission 

^ \ o % 


Testimony  of  Herman  justi , Commissioner  of  the 
Illinois  Coal  Operators  Association , before  the 
National  Industrial  Commission , Washington , 
17.  C.,  May  13th,  1 go i,  on  the  Conditions  of 
Labor  in  the  Coal  Mining  Industry  of  Illinois. 


The  commission  met  at  10.55  a.  m.,  Senator  Kyle  presiding. 
At  that  time  Mr.  Herman  Justi  tvas  introduced  as  a witness,  and, 
being  first  duly  sworn,  testified  as  follows: 

Q.  (By  Senator  Kyle.)  Will  you  give  your  name  and 
address  and  business  to  the  stenographer? — A.  Herman  Justi; 
commissioner  of  the  Illinois  Coal  Operators  Association, 
Ellsworth  Building,  Chicago. 

Q.  (By  Mr.  Farquhar.)  What  were  the  reasons  that  led  up 
to  the  formation  of  this  association  on  the  part  of  the  operators 
in  Illinois  ? — A.  The  constant  trouble  between  the  coal  opera- 
tors and  the  coal  miners  of  Illinois  arising  from  disputes  over 
the  interpretation  of  certain  clauses  in  the  agreements  entered 
into  between  the  coal  operators  and  the  coal  miners  was  one  of  the 
causes  that  led  up  to  the  establishment  of  the  Association  of  the 
Illinois  Coal  Operators.  The  miners  of  Illinois,  like  the  miners 
of  other  States,  were  scarcely  educated  up  to  the  point  where 
they  could  fully  appreciate  and  understand  the  exact  nature 
of  these  agreements,  and  therefore  the  sacredness  of  the  con- 
tract was  very  often  disregarded.  Under  what  is  known  as  the 
interstate  joint  movement,  certain  scales  of  wages  and  condi- 
tions of  mining  were  established  for  the  four  central  coal  States; 
that  is  to  say,  mining  rates,  based  upon  competitive  conditions 
established  for  certain  basing  points  of  Pennsylvania,  Ohio, 
Indiana  and  Illinois  in  an  interstate  convention,  and  in  this 
interstate  convention  the  mining  conditions  were  also  estab- 
lished.* 

*Mr.  E.  T.  Bent  of  Oglesby,  for  many  years  Secretary  of  the  Northern  Illinois 
Coal  Operators  Association,  informs  me  that : “ prior  to  the  forming  of  our  Asso- 

ciation the  trouble  in  northern  Illinois  was  partly  over  the  interpretation  of  the 
agreement,  and  partly  over  the  increasing  difficulty  in  making  any  agreement 
at  all  with  the  rest  of  the  State  running  wild.  So  far  as  the  rest  of  Illinois  was 
concerned  the  trouble  was  due  to  there  being  no  agreements  except  at  mines 
locally,  and  those  agreements  often  hardly  worthy  of  the  name  because  enforced 
by  one  party — in  some  cases  all  the  miners  in  a single  shaft  were  not  paid  the 
same  rate,  and  other  cases  no  two  companies  were  paying  the  same  rate.  This 
was  the  condition  prior  to  the  strike  of  1897,  and  it  was  the  issue  of  that  strike 
that  drove  the  operators  into  affiliation  the  following  winter.  Outside  of  the 
First  District  I doubt  if  there  were  any  written  contracts  prior  to  that  strike 
over  which  disputes  as  to  the  interpretation  of  certain  clauses  could  arise. 
Contracts  were  certainly  often  disregarded,  the  alleged  justification,  rightly  or 
wrongly,  being  attributed  to  that  fact  that  they  had  little  or  no  hand  in  making 
them.” 


3 


Q.  (By  Senator  Kyle.)  What  States? — A.  Pennsylvania, 
Ohio,  Indiana  and  Illinois.  The  purpose  of  fixing  a mining 
scale,  and  mining  conditions  in  these  four  states,  was  in  order 
to  bring  them  as  nearly  as  possible  upon  a fair  competitive 
basis.  The  idea  of  this  interstate  movement  was  to  establish 
as  far  as  possible  uniformity  not  only  in  the  scale  of  wages,  but 
in  the  conditions  of  mining,  and  as  a result  it  naturally  influenced 
producers  in  establishing  the  selling  price  of  coal.  Without 
any  agreement  having  been  made  as  to  what  the  price  of  coal 
should  be,  the  fact  that  all  the  coal  operators  in  those  four 
States  paid  relatively  the  same  mining  scale  and  were  operat- 
ing under  the  same  conditions  of  mining  made  it  possible  for 
every  operator  to  know  approximately  what  the  product  of 
every  coal  mine  cost  every  other  coal  operator. 

While  the  system  is  in  itself  excellent,  and  while  I believe  an 
honest  effort  has  been  made  to  maintain  this  interstate  move- 
ment upon  a basis  of  uniformity — that  is  to  say,  commercial 
uniformity — still  that  great  essential  to  the  continued  success  of 
the  movement  has  not  as  yet  been  fully  realized. 

I can  best  explain  it  in  this  way:  Of  those  four  States  in  the 
interstate  movement,  Pennsylvania,  Ohio,  and  Indiana  are 
upon  what  is  known  as  the  double  standard  or  the  screening 
basis,  while  Illinois  is  on  the  run  of  mine  basis.  Then  there 
is  a differential  between  machine  mining  and  pick  mining. 
That  was  also  intended  to  be  uniform,  but  uniformity  in  that 
respect  has  not  as  yet  been  attained.  But  taking  the  system 
as  a whole,  it  has  been  a vast  improvement  upon  the  system  or 
the  want  of  system  that  prevailed  prior  to  the  interstate  joiirt 
movement.* 

The  interstate  movement  was  inaugurated  at  Chicago  in 
January,  1898.  It  was  a direct  result  of  the  long  and  bitter 
strike  in  the  coal  mining  industry  that  prevailed  throughout 
Pennsylvania,  Indiana,  Ohio  and  Illinois  during  1897.  Prior 
to  the  interstate  joint  movement  chaos  prevailed  in  the  bitumi- 
nous coal  fields.  The  conditions  throughout  were  demoralized. 
Labor  was  dissatisfied.  Strikes  or  lockouts  happened  almost 
daily,  and  occurred  always  in  one  of  two  ways:  There  being- 
no  uniformity  in  the  mining  scale,  in  wages  or  mining  conditions, 
the  miners  of  one  mine  or  of  a set  of  mines  would  strike  because 
they  were  getting  less  pay  than  the  miners  at  some  other  mine 
or  set  of  mines.  Then,  on  the  other  hand,  certain  operators 
who  were  paying  a higher  mining  scale  than  their  competitors 
would  often  shut  down  their  mines  until  their  rate  was  re- 
duced. As  a consequence  there  was  always  a strike  or  lockout 

*Since  giving  my  testimony  before  the  National  Industrial  Commission,  I 
have  been  informed  that  the  interstate  movement  existed  formerly  for  several 
years,  but  with  only  limited  success  on  account  of  the  First  District  of  Illinois 
alone  adhering  to  it,  the  balance  of  the  States  not  being  bound  by  its  acts. 


4 


somewhere,  and  such  a thing  as  industrial  peace  in  the  bitumi- 
nous coal  fields  was  unknown. 

Under  the  old  system  the  more  powerful  operators  could, 
and  the  less  scrupulous  operators  would,  take  advantage  not 
only  of  the  miners  but  also  of  their  more  scrupulous  rivals, 
that  system  not  only  encouraged  unfair  practices  and  threw 
into  idleness  tens  of  thousands  of  working  men,  but  it  crippled 
or  bankrupted  many  honest  coal  operators. 

Severe  as  competition  is  found  today  in  the  bituminous  coal 
held,  it  has  its  limitations,  which  it  did  not  have  before.  The 
reason  for  this  is  plain.  Relatively  speaking,  every  operator 
m the  bituminous  held  pays  the  same  scale  of  wages,  the  same 
mining  scale,  and  is  governed  by  the  same  mining  conditions. 
Each  operator  therefore  knows  substantially  what  it  costs  his 
rival  to  produce  coal,  and  hence  the  selling  price  must  of 
necessity  be  more  nearly  uniform.* 

Then,  again,  prior  to  the  interstate  movement,  there  was  no 
reliable  standard  of  justice  by  which  the  miners  were  to  be  guided. 
.The  interstate  joint  movement  has  had  a tendency  to  impress 
on  the  men  the  sacredness  of  a contract,  thus  making  the  task 
of  the  miners  officials  less  difficult  in  the  carrying  out  of  the 
agreements  into  which  they  entered  on  behalf  of  the  men. 
This  is  not  possible  always  as  yet,  but  there  is  at  least  a steady 
and  gratifying  improvement.  Notably  is  this  true  in  Illinois, 
where  the  operators  and  miners  have  strong  and  thoroughly 
equipped  organizations. 

Q- . (By  Mr.  Kennedy.)  Did  you  state  by  what  authority 
this  interstate  movement  was  set  up  ? — A.  It  can  hardly  be 
called  an  organization.  The  operators  meet  by  mutual  agree- 
ment with  the  United  Mine  Workers  of  America  annually  in  joint 
convention,  for  the  purpose-  of  effecting  trade  agreements. 
They  organize  by  the  election  of  a chairman,  of  a secretary, 
appoint  committees  and  proceed  as  is  the  custom  in  deliberative 
bodies. 

Q,  It  was  set  up  by  consent  of  the  two  interests,  and  you 
represent  the  operators? — A.  Yes;  it  is  with  consent  of  the  two 
interests,  but  I am  the  commissioner  simply  of  the  Illinois  Coal 
Operators  Association.  The  operators  of  the  other  three  States 
have  organizations,  but  I do  not  know  how  far  they  have  gone 
in  establishing  commissions  similar  to  ours. 

*To  the  end  that  uniformity  might  prevail  in  fact  rather  than  merely  in 
theory  Mr.  A.  J.  Moorshead,  at  the  interstate  convention  of  1901, 'held  in  Colum- 
° j r,  the  following  resolution,  which  was  defeated,  the  operators 
ot  Illinois  and  the  miners  of  the  four  States  to  the  interstate  movement  voting 
a-r)  while  the  operators  of  Pennsylvania,  Ohio  and  Indiana  voted  “nay:” 

Kesolved,  1 hat  inasmuch  as  the  foundations  of  the  interstate  movement  are 
based  upon  competitive  and  commercial  uniformity  and  not  upon  geographical 
lines,  the  scale  of  wages  and  conditions  must  be  uniform  throughout  the  States, 
parties  to  said  agreement  and  the  scale  committee  is  hereby  instructed  to  draft 
an  agreement  to  cover  the  prices  and  conditions  of  both  pick  and  machine  mining 
m said  competitive  field  based  upon  lines  of  uniformity.” 


5 


Q.  We  would  like  to  know  more  of  the  purposes  and  plans 
of  your  commission  ? — A.  I will  endeavor  to  describe  briefly 
the  purpose  and  scope  of  the  commission  established  by  the 
Illinois  Coal  Operators  Association. 

1.  The  individual  operator  finding  himself  at  a disadvantage, 
if  not  powerless,  in  dealing  with  a great  labor  organization 
like  the  United  Mine  Workers,  realized  the  necessity  for  estab- 
lishing upon  a firm  basis  an  organization  of  operators.  Such 
an  organization  could,  it  was  believed,  enjoying  the  respect  of 
its  rival,  bring  about  greater  uniformity  in  wages  and  condi- 
tions, and  also  be  conducive  of  harmony  among  the  operators 
and  between  the  operators  and  the  miners. 

2.  Disputes  and  strikes  coming  with  such  frequency,  if  they 
were  to  be  settled  with  any  degree  of  satisfaction,  required  far 
too  large  a share  of  the  operator’s  time,  or  else  if  his  time  was 
not  thus  freely  given  to  the  task  of  settling  them  they  would  be 
settled  by  the  miners  in  their  own  way  and  for  their  own 
advantage  regardless  of  the  rights  of  the  employer. 

3.  The  coal  operators  of  Illinois  decided  that  they  were  not 
themselves  well  qualified  to  sit  in  judgment  upon  their  own 
grievances.  They  believed  further  that  this  was  an  age  of 
specialization  and  of  specialists,  and  that  special  talents  and 
peculiar  fitness,  along  with  perfect  knowledge  of  labor  conditions 
throughout  the  State,  were  necessary  to  settle  disputes  fairly. 
And  what  is  true  of  coal  operators  is  equally  true  of  coal  miners, 
human  nature  being  the  same  in  both — both  seeking  alike  only 
their  own  selfish  interests  and  often  closing  their  eyes  to  the 
rights  of  others. 

This  system  of  settling  disputes  and  of  preventing  strikes 
has,  I am  happy  to  say,  worked  admirably. 

Under  this  system,  whenever  differences  arise  between 
operator  and  miner,  if  the  complaint  is  on  the  side  of  the  miner 
application  is  made  by  the  local  officials  of  the  miners’  union 
to  their  general  officers,  and  the  general  officers  in  turn  notify 
the  commissioner  of  the  Illinois  Coal  Operators  Association 
of  the  fact  that  differences  or  disputes  have  arisen  at  a certain 
mine,  and  that  they  desire  to  take  up  the  matter  with  a view 
of  adjusting  it.  If  the  complaint  comes  from  the  side  of  the 
operator,  the  operator  calls  the  attention  of  the  commissioner 
to  the  fact,  and  the  commissioner  in  turn  calls  the  attention  of 
the  officials  of  the  United  Mine  Workers. 

I am  now  speaking,  of  course,  only  of  Illinois.  I should 
remark,  however,  that  under  the  State  agreement  entered 
into  between  the  operators  and  the  miners  there  is  a clause 
defining  exactly  what  steps  shall  be  taken  before  any  question 
in  dispute  is  submitted  either  to  the  general  officers  of  the 
miners’  organization  or  to  the  commissioner  of  the  Illinois  Coal 


Operators  Association,  and  I will  file  copies  of  this  agreement 
with  you.* 

The  idea  of  both  organizations  is  that  disputes  and  differences 
are  best  settled  as  near  their  source  as  possible,  and  as  soon  as 
possible,  after  any  dissatisfaction  has  been  expressed  or  any 
differences  have  arisen  either  upon  the  part  of  the  employer  or 
the  employee  or  between  the  employer  and  employee.  Com- 
plaint having  been  made  by  either  side,  the  officials  of  the  two 
organizations,  namely,  the  United  Mine  Workers  of  America 
and  the  Illinois  Coal  Operators  Association,  agree  upon  a 
place  of  meeting,  and  this  is  usually  at  the  mines  where  the 

*Section  XIII  of  State  Agreement  is  as  follows: 

13th.  (a)  The  duties  of  the  pit  committee  shall  be  confined  to  the  adjustment 
of  disputes  between  the  pit  boss  and  any  of  the  members  of  the  United  Mine 
Workers  of  America  working  in  and  around  the  mine,  for  whom  a scale  is  made 
arising  out  of  this  agreement  or  any  sub-district  agreement  made  in  connection 
herewith,  where  the  pit  boss  and  said  miner  or  mine  laborer  have  failed  to  agree. 

(b)  In  case  of  any  local  trouble  arising  at  any  shaft  through  such  failure  to 
agree  between  the  pit  boss  and  any  miner  or  mine  laborer,  the  pit  committee 
and  the  miners’  local  president  and  the  pit  boss  are  empowered  to  adjust  it; 
and  in  the  case  of  their  disagreement  it  shall  be  referred  to  the  superintendent  of 
the  company  and  the  president  of  the  miners’  local  executive  board,  where 
such  exists,  and  shall  they  fail  to  adjust  it — and  in  all  other  cases — it  shall  be 
referred  to  the  superintendent  of  the  company  and  the  miners’  president  of  the 
sub-district;  and  should  they  fail  to  adjust  it  it  shall  be  referred  in  writing  to 
the  officials  of  the  company  concerned  and  the  State  officials  of  the  United  Mine 
Workers  of  America  for  adjustment;  and  in  all  such  cases  the  miners  and  mine 
laborers  and  parties  involved  must  continue  at  work  pending  an  investigation 
and  adjustment  until  a final  decision  is  reached* in  the  matter  above  set  forth. 

(c)  If  any  day  men  refuse  to  continue  at  work  because  of  a grievance  which 
has  or  has  not  been  taken  up  for  adjustment  in  the  manner  provided  herein, 
and  such  action  shall  seem  likely  to  impede  the  operation  of  the  mine,  the  pit 
committee  shall  immediately  furnish  a man  or  men  to  take  such  vacant  place  or 
places  at  the  scale  rate,  in  order  that  the  mine  may  continue  at  work;  and  it 
shall  be  the  duty  of  any  member  or  members  of  the  United  Mine  Workers  who 
may  be  called  upon  by  the  pit  boss  or  pit  committee  to  immediately  take  the 
place  or  places  assigned  to  him  or  them  in  pursuance  hereof. 

(d)  The  pit  committee  in  the  discharge  of  its  duties  shall  under  no  circum- 
stances go  around  the  mine  for  any  cause  whatever  unless  called  upon  by  the 
pit  boss  or  by  a miner  or  company  man  who  may  have  a grievance  that  he  can 
not  settle  with  the  boss;  and  as  its  duties  are  confined  to  the  adjustment  of  any 
such  grievances,  it  is  understood  that  its  members  shall  not  draw  any  compen- 
sation except  while  actively  engaged  in  the  discharge  of  said  duties.  The  fore- 
going shall  not  be  construed  to  prohibit  the  pit  committee  from  looking  after  the 
matter  of  membership  dues  and  initiations  in  any  proper  manner. 

(e)  Members  of  the  pit  committee  employed  as  day  men  shall  not  leave  their 
places  of  duty  during  working  hours  except  by  permission  of  the  operator,  or  in 
cases  involving  the  stoppage  of  the  mine. 

(f)  The  operator  or  his  superintendent  or  mine  manager  shall  be  respected  in 
the  management  of  the  mine  and  the  direction  of  the  working  force.  The  right 
to  hire  must  include  also  the  right  to  discharge,  and  it  is  not  the  purpose  of  this 
agreement  to  abridge  the  rights  of  the  employer  in  either  of  thesg  respects.  If, 
however,  any  employee  shall  be  suspended  or  discharged  by  the  company,  and  it 
is  claimed  that  an  injustice  has  been  done  him,  an  investigation  to  be  conducted 
by  the  parties  and  in  the  manner  set  forth  in  the  paragraphs  (a)  and  (b)  of  this 
section  shall  be  taken  up  at  once,  and  if  it  is  determined  that  an  injustice  has 
been  done,  the  operator  agrees  to  reinstate  said  employe  and  pay  him  full  com- 
pensation for  the  time  he  has  been  suspended  and  out  of  employment;  provided, 
if  no  decision  shall  be  rendered  within  five  days  the  case  shall  be  considered  closed 
in  so  far  as  compensation  is  concerned. 


7 


trouble  exists,  although  it  does  sometimes  happen  that  the 
meetings  are  held  either  at  the  office  of  the  commission  in 
Chicago  or  of  the  United  Mine  Workers  in  Springfield.  Either 
the  president  or  the  vice-president  of  the  United  Mine  Workers 
and  the  commissioner  of  the  Illinois  Coal  Operators  Associa- 
tion are  always  present  at  these  meetings.  All  formality  is 
sought  to  be  waived.  At  times  we  organize  by  electing  a chair- 
man, and  at  other  times  we  simply  gather  in  an  informal  way 
around  a table  and  invite  testimony.  We  always  announce 
that  the  fullest  latitude  will  be  given  to  all  witnesses,  and  that 
they  will  be  permitted  to  say  what  they  please  without  inter- 
ruption, so  long  as  they  are  respectful  and  do  nothing  to  pro- 
voke a breach  of  the  peace.  No  effort  is  made  on  either  side  to 
embarrass  the  witness.  No  advantage  is  sought  upon  mere 
technicalities..  The  purpose  of  this  joint  meeting  of  the  opera- 
tors and  the  miners  is  to  bring  out  the  truth,  and  every  man  is 
encouraged  to  speak  the  truth  with  perfect  freedom  and  without 
fear  of  any  consequences,  the  moral  support  of  both  organiza- 
tions being  pledged  to  protect  him. 

Q.  Do  other  parties  than  those  interested  participate  in  these 
conferences  ?— A.  The  operators  and  the  miners  directly  in- 
terested participate,  and,  if  necessary  to  a full  understanding  of 
the  case,  witnesses  are  brought  from  the  outside,  but  they  are 
usually  witnesses  who  come  from  some  other  mine  or  operators 
who  possibly  have  some  similar  conditions. 

Q.  Lawyers  or  other  parties  are  not  brought  into  these  con- 
ferences ? — A.  Lawyers  are  never  brought  in. 

Q.  The  matter  rests  entirely  with  the  operators  and  the  miners  ? 
—A.  Yes. 

Q.  In  the  meantime  are  those  mines  being  worked  while  this 
conference  is  in  session,  before  you  come  to  a decision? — A.  I 
will  read  a clause  from  the  State  agreement  which  bears  on  this 
subject,  and  which  answers  your  question,  I believe. 

(Reading.) 

“Sec.  XIII.  In  case  of  any  local  trouble  arising  at  any  shaft 
through  failure  to  agree  between  the  pit  boss  and  any  miner  or 
mine  laborer,  the  pit  committee  and  the  miners’  local  president 
and  the  pit  boss  are  empowered  to  adjust  it;  and  in  the  case 
of  their  disagreement  it  shall  be  referred  to  the  superintendent 
of  the  company  and  the  president  of  the  miners’  local  executive 
board,  where  such  exists,  and  shall  they  fail  to  adjust  it — and 
in  all  other  cases — it  shall  be  referred  to  the  superintendent  of 
the  company  and  the  miners’  president  of  the  subdistrict;  and 
should  they  fail  to  adjust  it,  it  shall  be  referred  in  writing  to 
the  officials  of  the  company  concerned  and  the  State  officials 
of  the  United  Mine  Workers  of  America  for  adjustment;  and 
in  all  such  cases  the  miners  and  mine  laborers  and  parties 
involved  must  continue  at  work  pending  an  investigation  and 
adjustment  until  a final  decision  is  reached  in  the  manner  above 
set  forth. 


S 


“If  any  day  men  refuse  to  continue  at  work  because  of  a 
grievance  which  has  or  has  not  been  taken  up  for  adjustment 
in  the  manner  provided  herein,  and  such  action  shall  seem 
likely  to  impede  the  operation  of  the  mine,  the  pit  committee 
shall  immediately  furnish  a man  or  men  to  take  such  vacant 
place  or  places  at  the  scale  rate,  in  order  that  the  mine  may 
continue  at  work;  and  it  shall  be  the  duty  of  any  member  or 
members  of  the  United  Mine  Workers  who  may  be  called  upon 
by  the  pit  boss  or  pit  committee  to  immediately  take  the  place 
or  places  assigned  to  him  or  them  in  pursuance  hereof.  ” 

Q.  (By  Mr.  Litchman.)  Do  I understand  you  are  yourself  a 
coal  operator  or  represent  the  Coal  Operators  Association f — A. 
I simply  represent  the  Coal  Operators  Association. 

Q.  (By  Mr.  Farquhar.)  What  are  the  delegated  powers 
from  the  Coal  Operators  Association  to  you  as  commissioner  ? — - 
A.  To  use  my  best  judgment  in  enforcing  the.  terms  of  the 
interstate,  State,  district,  and  subdistrict  agreements,  and  to 
adjust  all  disputes  and  differences  that  arise  between  the  opera- 
tors and  the  miners.  Only  the  question  of  labor  is  referred  to 
me.  I have  nothing  whatever  to  do  with  any  movement  look- 
ing to  the  establishment  of  a scale  of  wages  or  conditions  of 
mining,  but  rather  to  enforce  those  conditions  and  to  see  that 
the  scale  of  wages  is  paid  after  it  has  been  agreed  upon  by 
the  respective  organizations. 

Q.  Your  decision  as  the  representative  of  the  operators  then 
is  final?- — A.  Yes;  binding  on  the  operators. 

Q.  Are  any  appeals  being  taken? — A.  There  have  been  no 
appeals  taken,  but  disputes  in  several  instances  have  been 
referred  to  the  National  President  of  the  U.  M.  W.  of  A.  and  to 
me  for  adjustment.  It  was  simply  a shifting  of  responsibility 
from  the  State  to  the  National  officers  of  the  miners’  organization. 
During  the  past  year  we  have  had  possibly  200  cases  before  the 
commission.  In  three  of  those  cases  the  State  officials  and  the 
commissioner  could  not  agree.  The  decision  upon  these  was 
referred  to  Mr.  John  Mitchell,  president  of  the  United  Mine 
Workers’  Union  of  America,  and  to  me,  the  commissioner.  One 
of  these  was  in  itself  trifling,  but  for  certain  reasons  the  officials 
of  the  State  organization  preferred  not  to  render  a decision,  and 
inasmuch  as  I had  another  case  at  the  same  time  with  Mr. 
Mitchell  they  agreed  to  refer  that  one  to  Mr.  Mitchell  and  to  me. 
After  hearing  Mr.  Mitchell’s  statement  of  the  case,  I consented, 
under  certain  conditions,  to  his  decision,  and  that  decision  was 
enforced. 

There  was  another  question  that  came  up,  in  regard  to  forcing 
men  on  initial  construction  work  into  the  union,  the  operators 
claiming  that  the  scale  of  wages  and  conditions  of  mining  had 
nothing  whatever  to  do  with  construction  work,  maintaining 
that  the  miners’  union  had  no  jurisdiction  over  such  employees. 
Mr.  Mitchell  preferred  not  to  render  a decision  in  the  matter, 


9 


and  said  he  thought  it  was  better  that  it  should  go  before  the 
State  convention  and  let  the  organizations  decide  it,  and  to  that 
I agreed.  So  the  demand  of  the  miners  with  reference  to 
forcing  men  on  construction  work  into  the  union  was  abandoned 
for  a time,  and  when  the  State  convention  met  in  Springfield 
last  March,  the  coal  miners  and  operators  agreed  that  the  men 
working  on  construction  work— on  new  work,  and  elaborate 
reconstruction  work — should  be  excluded  from  the  union.  So 
that  matter,  was  ultimately  settled  as  was  desired  by  the 
operators.* 

Q.  (By  Mr.  Kennedy.)  Who,  if  anybody,  holds  equal  power 
with  you  on  behalf  of  the  miners? — A.  The  president  and  vice- 
president  of  the  State  organization.  of  the  mine  workers’  union. 

Q.  (By  Mr.  Farquhar.)  The  jurisdiction  of  the  miners  of 
Illinois  is  divided  up  into  the  State  jurisdiction,  the  district . 
jurisdiction  and  the  sub-district  jttrisdiction  ? — A.  Yes. 

Q.  How  many  districts  in  the  State  ? — A.  We  have  nine 
scale  districts.  The  districts  are  divided  with  a view  to 
establishing  a mining  scale  based  upon  the  varying  conditions 
of  mining.  That  is  to  say,  in  one  part  of  the  State  it  is  long  wall 
mining  and  in  another  part  of  the  State  it  is  room  and  pillar 
work.  Then  in  some  parts  of  the  State  the  seams  are  thick,  and 
in  other  parts  they  are  thin,  and  the  scale  of  wages  is  based 
upon  the  competitive  conditions  and  the  mining  conditions. 

Q.  In  these  disputes  about  conditions  of  labor  and  about 
wages  since  you  have  been  commissioner,  what  is  your  expe- 
rience, that  more  have  originated  from  the  operators  or  from 
the  miners? — A.  The  200  complaints,  I believe,  were  about 
equally  divided,  although  in  the  adjustment  of  the  differences  I 
presume  that  possibly  80  per  cent  were  decided  against  the 
miners.  The  reason  for  that,  of  course,  will  be  at  once  apparent 
when  I tell  you  that  the  miners  were  not  so  thoroughly  familiar 
with  the  agreements,  and  they  had  so  many  local  organizations 
that  local  demands  would  be  made,  such  as  they  had  made 
prior  to  the  interstate  movement;  the  presumption  on  their 
part  was  that  what  they  had  done  before  they  could  continue 
to  do  even  after  this  movement  had  been  inaugurated. t 

Q.  You  have  no  disputes  coming  from  the  mine  run  system? 

*Clause  19th  of  State  Agreement  reads: 

The  erection  of  head  frames,  buildings,  scales,  machinery,  railroad  switches, 
etc.,  necessary  for  the  completion  of  a plant  to  hoist  coal,  all  being  in  the  nature 
of  construction  work,  are  to  be  excluded  from  the  jurisdiction  of  the  United 
Mine  Workers  of  America.  Extensive  repairs  to  or  rebuilding  the  same  class 
of  work  shall  also  be  included  in  the  same  exception. 

fit  has  been  the  custom  of  the  United  Mine  Workers  to  adopt  their  con- 
stitution before  the  joint  state  convention,  and  so  that  instrument  did  not  always 
conform  to  the  joint  agreements.  As  a result,  the  miners  obeyed  their  constitu- 
tion, and  disregarded  clauses  in  the  agreement  conflicting  with  the  constitu- 
tion. Another  common  practice  was  that  of  the  miners’  locals  promulgating 
certain  demands  which  they  considered  equivalent  to  an  agreement  and  which 
they  would  at  once  proceed  to  enforce. 


10 


— A.  Yes;  the  complaints  of  the  mine  run  system  are  frequently 
due,  as  is  natural,  from  the  excessive  use  of  powder,  which,  as 
you  will  readily  understand,  shoots  the  coal  into  smaller  frag- 
ments than  is  desirable,  thus  greatly  increasing  the  percentage  of 
screenings.  There  has  also  been  a disposition  on  the  part  of  the 
miners  to  load  rock,  slate  and  sulphur,  but  an  honest  effort  is 
being  made  by  the  miners’  officials  to  check  this,  fines,  suspen- 
sions or  discharge  being  the  penalty,  and  while  the  coal  as  a 
result  is  slightly  cleaner,  the  percentage  of  fine  coal  continues 
very  great.* 

Q.  From  your  experience  would  you  say  the  run-of-mine  is 
a better  plan  than  the  screen,  and  more  satisfactory  to  both 
men  and  operators f — A.  I would  say  the  run-of-mine  system 
would  be  the  best  system  if  it  was  adopted  universally, 
and  if  the  result,  which  was  promised  by  the  mine  workers’ 
union  when  they  went  to  the  mine-run  basis,  was  carried  out. 
The  operators  were  assured  the  mine-run  system  would  make 
better  miners,  but  as  yet  this  promise  has  not  been  fulfilled. 
I have  no  question  whatever  of  the  earnest  desire  of  the  officials 
to  carry  it  out,  but  up  to  this  time  they  have  simply  been 
unable  to  do  it.  I think  the  system,  in  itself,  is  designed  to 
make  better  miners,  but,  as  stated  before,  the  system  has  not 
been  satisfactory. 

To  give  you  some  general  idea  of  how  some  of  the  more  serious 
questions  are  settled  in  our  State,  one  of  the  three  cases  that  were 
submitted  to  President  John  Mitchell  and  to  me  jointly,  was  a 
question  that  came  up  within  the  last  40  days  in  the  Danville 
district,  which  is  the  basing  district  for  Illinois.  The  question 
in  dispute  was  the  interpretation  of  clause  16  of  the  State 
agreement.  It  bears  directly  upon  the  question  you  asked 
in  regard  to  the  mine-run  system.  A brief  history  of  the  con- 
tention in  the  State  convention  which  led  up  to  the  adoption  of 
clause  16  of  the  Illinois  State  agreement,  is  given  in  this  decision 
rendered  by  President  Mitchell  and  by  me  jointly.  The  question 
under  discussion  was  as  to  what  constituted  ordinary  and  what 
constituted  “extraordinary  conditions”  in  mining — that  is  to 
say,  how  much  rock  was  it  necessary  for  the  miner  to  clean  as  a 
part  of  the  work  in  return  for  the  wage  which  was  paid  him  per 
ton  under  the  mining  scale  of  that  district.  The  miners  con- 
tended that  “extraordinary  conditions”  meant  one  thing,  and 
the  operators  contended  that  it  meant  something  else.  The 
operators  took  the  position  that  the  purpose  of  inserting  that  16th 
clause  in  the  State  agreement  was  to  give  to  the  operators  of 
' that  district  clean  coal,  for  which  they  really  paid  when  they 
complied  with  the  terms  of  the  interstate  agreement. 

Q.  For  which  the  price  was  commensurate ? — A.  For  which 
the  price  was  commensurate.  The  State  miners’  organization 

*See  correspondence  of  President  Mitchell  and  the  Commissioner  of  the  Illinois 
Coal  Operators  Association  appended. 


11 


and  the  operators  of  the  Danville  district  failing  to  agree,  and 
the  miners  refusing  to  go  to  work  tinder  the  interpretation  of  the 
article  in  question  by  the  operators,  and  the  operators  refusing 
to  start  up  their  mines  under  the  interpretation  by  the  miners, 
a deadlock  was  at  once  established  and  about  4,000  miners 
threatened  to  quit  work.  President  Russell  of  the  State 
miners’  organization,  recognizing  that  the  situation  was  critical 
and  that  it  was  necessary  that  something  should  be  done, 
finally  offered  a resolution  in  the  joint  subdistrict  convention  at 
Danville,  on  April  11,  as  follows: 

“That  the  questions  now  in  dispute  in  the  Danville  district, 
namely,  the  interpretation  and  application  of  the  sixteenth 
clause  of  the  Springfield  agreement  and  the  method  of  shearing 
the  entry  coal,  be  referred  to  Mr.  Mitchell  and  Mr.  Justi  for 
settlement,  and  their  decision  shall  be  binding.  Work  at  the 
mines  shall  resume  and  continue  pending  the  settlement  under 
the  agreement  of  1901  and  now  in  force.  In  case  the  decision 
is  against  the  operators,  the  miners  shall  be  paid  for  the  work 
done  under  protest. 

“The  parties  herein  named  are  to  take  up  the  matter  and 
dispose  of  it  at  once. 

“The  rock  down  in  the  places  at  the  resumption  of  work  is  to 
be  cleaned  up  by  the  operators.  ” 

In  accordance  with  that  resolution,  Mr.  Mitchell  and  I re- 
paired to  the  Danville  district  and  made  a thorough  inspection 
of  the  4 of  the  10  mines  involved.  We  devoted  3 days  to  this 
work,  after  which  we  were  in  session  2 days  in  our  efforts 
to  reach  an  agreement,  and  this  decision,  a copy  of  which  I 
wish  to  file,  is  the  result.* 

The  decision  was  a substantial  triumph  for  the  operators. 
Although  the  miners  in  the  Danville  district  are  said  to  be  the 
most  radical  in  the  State,  they  remained  at  work  during  that 
investigation,  and  after  the  decision  was  reached  they  continued 
at  work  and  are  at  work  today.  I had  information  of  that  fact 
only  yesterday. 

Q.  You  spoke  a short  time  ago  of  the  difficulty  of  the  mine 
workers  understanding  these  agreements,  and  maintaining  old 
privileges  and  old  rules.  Now,  by  that  do  you  intend  to  criti- 
cize the  intelligence  of  the  miner,  or  do  you  refer  to  the  lack  of 
means  of  information  of  the  miners  to  know  exactly  what  the 
new  rules  aref — A.  There  are  constantly  new  men  who  join 
the  unions,  and,  of  course,  they  must  be  educated.  There  are 
changes  being  constantly  made  in  the  local  organizations  in  the 
district,  new  local  officers  are  elected,  and  very  often  they  are 
elected  because  they  have  made  promises  to  do  for  the  miners 
what  their  predecessors  had  perhaps  promised  to  do  and  found 
they  could  not  do.  It  is  not  due  to  inherent  ignorance  of  the 
miners. 


*See  decision  of  Commission  appended. 

12 


Q.  What  nationality  prevails  in  the  mines  of  Illinois? — A.  I 
can  not  say  definitely.  I could  obtain  the  information,  of 
course,  but  I haven’t  it  at  hand.  In  parts  of  the  northern  field 
there  are  a good  many  Hungarians,  Lithuanians,  and  Poles. 
In  the  south  there  are  quite  a number  of  blacks,  American, 
Irish,  English,  and  Scotch.  In  the  central  part  of  the  State 
there  are  English,  Scotch,  Americans,  and  Italians.  But  I 
believe  the  majority  of  the  miners  in  the  State  of  Illinois  are 
English-speaking  people.* 

There  is  another  great  difficulty  in  informing  the  men  of  the 
exact  nature  of  these  State  agreements.  In  the  first  place,  after 
the  agreement  is  made  (as  of  the  first  of  April  always),  it 
must  be  translated  into  all  of  these  languages  spoken  at  the 
different  mines,  and  it  must  be  explained  and  the  reasons  given 
why  it  was  necessary  to  make  the  changes.  If  a concession  was 
made  to  the  operators,  of  course  it  requires  a good  deal  of  work 
on  the  part  of  the  officials  to  convince  the  miners  that  after  all  it 
was  for  the  best,  and  that,  whether  it  was  for  the  best  or  not,  it 
was  the  best  that  could  be  done  under  the  circumstances. 

Q.  Do  the  mine  workers  of  the  State  have  their  own  conven- 
tion at  Springfield? — A.  They  hold  their  own  convention  at 
Springfield.  That  convention  is  always  held  before  the  joint 
State  convention,  just  as  the  national  organization  of  mine 
workers  meets  before  the  interstate  convention. 

Q.  In  the  operators’  conferences  or  in  their  convention  is 
your  State  pretty  well  represented  by  operators? — A.  Yes;  Illi- 
nois, both  by  miners  and  operators,  is  always  largely  represented 
in  the  interstate  convention. 

Q.  Have  you  many  operators  in  Illinois  under  conflicting 
interests  that  would  cause  a lack  of  harmony  among  the  oper- 
ators?— A.  Prior  to  the  interstate  movement  it  was 
believed  that  there  were  conditions  that  prevented  harmony, 
and  it  was  a fact  that  the  operators  in  one  part  of  the  State  were 
entirely  unacquainted  with  the  operators  in  the  other  parts  of 
the  State  and  distrusted  them,  but  the  feeling  of  distrust  has 
now  passed  away,  and  all  the  operators  in  Illinois  know  each 
other. 

Q.  Did  you  say  that  these  conferences,  both  on  the  part  of  the 
workingmen  and  on  the  part  of  the  operators,  had  been  con- 
ducive to  harmony  of  interests  and  a better  understanding  of  the 

*The  nationalities  represented  in  Illinois  as  per  Illinois  Coal  report  1899  is 
as  follows: 


American 

373  Poles 

. . 2,133 

English 

. . 487 

Scotch 

Russians 

. . 498 

Irish 

975  Scandinavian  . . 

. . 619 

Welsh 

774  Unknown 

. . 861 

German 4,138 

While  the  increase  of  late  years  in  northern  Illinois  has  been  largely  with 
Hungarians,  Lithuanians,  Italians  and  Poles,  still  English,  Scotch,  Irish  and 
Welsh  are  largely  employed. 


13 


interests  of  the  whole  State? — A.  They  have  been  a tremendous 
advantage  both  to  the  operators  and  to  the  miners.  In  fact, 
it  is  my  belief  that  95  per  cent  of  -all  the  differences  and 
disputes  arising  between  employees  and  employers  can  be  set- 
tled amicably  if  the  parties  in  dispute  will  only  consent  to  a 
conference.  If  they  will  only  get  together  and  talk  the  matter 
over  they  can  usually  reach  some  agreement,  and,  as  a rule, 
the  result  will  be  partly  a compromise,  because  it  will  be  found 
that  they  were  both  to  some  extent  right  and  to  some  extent 
wrong. 

Q.  (By  Senator  Kyle.)  Theretofore  you  had  not  the  machinery 
to  settle  these  disputes? — A.  That  is  it  precisely;  we  were  with- 
out the  necessary  machinery  for  settling  our  differences. 

Q.  And  that  is  true  of  all  the  years  previous  to  the  last  few 
years? — A.  That  was  true  until  1898,  and  in  the  sense  that  the 
question  of  labor  has  been  taken  up  as  a distinct  and  separate 
question,  it  was  true  until  the  past  year. 

Q.  Heretofore,  were  your  associations  opposed  to  organized 
labor? — A.  In  the  southern  part  of  the  state  and  in  the  central 
part  they  were  opposed  to  organized  labor;  in  the  northern  part 
of  the  State  they  recognized  labor  at  an  earlier  date. 

Q.  (By  Mr.  Farquhar.)  Recognized  it  on  account  of  its 
strength,  didn’t  they? — A.  Yes;  though  many  preferred  dealing 
with  organized  labor  even  in  those  earlier  days. 

Q.  Have  you  any  papers  on  any  features  of  these  Illinois 
conferences  or  agreements  that  you  desire  to  present? — A.  Yes; 
I want  to  leave  copies  of  the  proceedings  of  the  last  interstate 
convention,  which  will  give  you  some  idea  of  how  thoroughly 
the  whole  question,  as  it  affects  these  four  States,  is  thrashed 
out.  Of  course,  they  never  agree  in  open  convention,  but  a 
general  discussion  is  carried  on  publicly  for  the  purpose  of 
bringing  out  the  sentiment  of  miners  and  operators  to  the 
end  that  the  differences  of  opinion  may  be  narrowed  down. 
Then  the  whole  question  in  dispute  as  to  the  scale  of  wages  or  as  to 
conditions  of  mining  is  referred  to  a joint  scale  committee,  com- 
posed of  4 miners  and  4 operators  from  each  State,  making  in 
all  32  representatives  on  that  joint  scale  committee.  That 
number  being  too  large,  the  matter  is  finally  referred  to  16  of 
the  32,  and  after  the  16  have  discussed  the  whole  question  pro 
and  con  for  about  3 days  they  then  report  to  the  full  scale 
committee,  and  it  in  turn  to  the  joint  convention,  progress  of 
work.  The  joint  convention  very  promptly  refers  the  matter 
back  to  the  special  scale  committee,  who  come  back  into  the 
joint  convention  with  some  definite  report.  We  have  held  these 
interstate  conventions  annually  since  1897,  and  we  have  never 
failed  to  reach  an  agreement. 

Q.  (By  Mr.  Kennedy.)  I want  to  ask  if  the  recognition  of 
organized  labor  has  been  a good  thing  for  the  operator,  in  that  it 
enables  one  operator  to  know  what  another  operator  has  to  pay 


14 


for  the  mining  of  coal? — A.  I believe  so;  in  my  opinion  it  is  a 
decided  advantage.  I believe  it  distributes  more  equitably  the 
trade  of  the  State  or  the  trade  of  the  country  in  that  product. 

Q.  And  brings  stability  to  the  trade? — A.  Yes. 

Q.  (By  Mr.  Litchman.)  As  I understand  it,  this  commission 
of  which  you  are  a member  is  composed  of  two  persons? — A.  No. 
This  commission  of  which  I speak  is  established  by  the  operators, 
and  I am  the  commissioner.  Now,  in  the  cases  which  I have 
mentioned  the  president  of  the  Mine  Workers’  Union,  represent- 
ing the  miners,  and  myself  constituted  a commission. 

Q.  I notice  in  the  agreement  which  you  submitted,  it  was 
signed  by  yourself  and  Mr.  Mitchell  as  commissioners. — A.  That 
was  because  we  were  joint  commissioners  in  that  particular  case. 
If  I may,  I would  like  to  leave  copies  of  the  proceedings  of  the 
joint  convention  of  the  coal  operators  and  miners  of  the  State  of 
Illinois  for  the  present  year.  You  will  see  this  is  printed  in  double 
column  and  takes  up  252  closely  printed  pages.  The  Illinois  coal 
operators  and  miners  in  their  recent  joint  convention  went  a little 
further  than  the  operators  and  miners  have  gone  before  in  the 
joint  movement  and  have  printed  the  proceedings  in 
full.  The  object  in  doing  so  was  that  if  during  the  year  or  at 
any  future  time  any  question  arose  as  to  the  reason  for  the 
adoption  of  any  particular  section  or  clause  of  the  agreement 
it  would  be  fully  explained  by  the  statements  of  some  coal 
operator  or  coal  miner  who  had  participated  in  one  or  the 
other  of  these  conferences. 

After  the  joint  interstate  convention  and  the  joint  State  con- 
ventions have  been  held,  then,  as  I stated  before,  the  districts 
and  subdistricts  meet  and  they  agree  upon  conditions  of  mining 
that  are  peculiar  either  to  some  one  or  two  mines  or  to  some 
special  district.  Now  all  of  these  agreements  for  Illinois  are 
embraced  in  one  volume,  which  gives  the  joint  State  agreement, 
the  Illinois  State  agreement,  and  the  district  and  local  agree- 
ments. Never  until  last  year  had  any  association  of  coal  opera- 
tors, in  Illinois  or  elsewhere,  undertaken  to  publish  in  one  volume 
all  these  different  agreements. 

Copies  of  these  agreements  are  very  generally  distributed 
throughout  the  State.  We  furnish  them  to  all  the  operators,  to 
all  the  superintendents  and  mine  managers.  We  furnish  them 
also  to  all  the  leading  officials — State,  district,  and  local — of  the 
Mine  Workers’  Union,  so  that  instead  of  referring  (as  was  the 
case  formerly)  to  a typewritten  copy,  which  was  very  often  hid- 
den away  and  could  not  always  be  found,  this  volume  is  always 
available,  so  that  the  exact  nature  of  every  agreement  is  readily 
obtainable. 

Q.  (By  Senator  Kyle.)  The  scale  of  wages  and  everything  is  in- 
cluded in  that? — A.  The  scale  of  wages,  the  mining  scale,  and 
all  the  conditions  of  labor  are  set  forth  in  that  work. 

Q.  For  each  of  the  districts? — A.  Yes.  I will  also  leave  with 


15 


you  copies  of  the  constitution  and  the  year  book  of  the  Illi- 
nois Coal  Operators  Association. 

I think  possibly  I can  illustrate  the  nature  of  our  work  so 
as  to  give  you  some  idea  of  our  plan.  Shortly  after  the  joint  con- 
vention in  Illinois,  the  drivers  in  some  of  the  districts  and  at  a 
good  many  of  the  mines  were  dissatisfied  with  their  wages, 
and  work  was  stopped  because  of  the  refusal  of  the  drivers  to 
work  at  the  wages  agreed  upon  in  the  joint  convention.  Now, 
this  was  clearly  contrary  to  the  State  agreement.  It  was,  how- 
ever, a trouble  not  wholly  unexpected.  We  immediately  ad- 
vised the  operators  throughout  the  districts  where  we  knew  that 
trouble  existed  to  inform  us  if  their  drivers  had  quit  work;  if  so, 
for  what  cause?  If  they  were  working,  was  it  at  the  scale?  If 
not  at  the  scale,  what  price  where  they  paying?  In  this  way  we 
were  enabled  to  determine  exactly  how  far  the  operators  had 
violated  their  agreement  and  how  far  the  miners  had  violated 
their  agreement.  The  operators’  and  miners’  organizations 
hold  that  it  is  just  as  wrong  and  just  as  demoralizing  to  pay 
more  than  the  agreed  price  as  it  is  to  pay  less  than  the  agreed 
price.  The  great  difficulty  that  prevailed  prior  to  the  interstate 
movement  was  due  to  the  lack  of  uniformity,  and  under  this 
interstate  and  State  joint  movement  the  only  way  that  peace 
can  be  preserved  is  by  observing  the  terms  of  the  agreement  and 
preserving  the  uniformity  for  which  we  have  been  contending. 

Then,  to  give  another  illustration,  an  operator  informs  us 
that  a demand  has  been  made  by  the  miners  at  his  mine  for 
something  that  is  not  provided  for  in  any  of  the  agreements  and 
had  never  been  provided  for.  Now,  in  order  to  preserve  uni- 
formity, we  immediately  proceed  to  send  out  a circular  letter  to 
every  operator  belonging  to  the  association  to  ascertain  what 
custom  or  practice  has  prevailed  at  the  particular  mine.  When 
this  information  is  received  we  know  precisely  what  to  do.  We 
are  able  to  meet  the  officials  of  the  Mine  Workers’  Union  and  to 
give  them  an  accurate  and  truthful  statement  of  the  condi- 
tions prevailing,  and  some  agreement  is  immediately  reached  as 
to  what  should  be  done  at  that  particular  mine  or  what  practice 
should  prevail  at  all  the  mines.  This  is  done  not  only  in  excep- 
tional cases,  but  it  is  done  in  all  cases  in  order  to  preserve  uni- 
formity. Therefore  the  records  and  files  of  the  Illinois  Coal 
Operators  Association,  after  a lapse  of  two  or  three  years  will  be 
very  valuable,  because  they  cover  nearly  every  question  that 
could  possibly  come  up  in  a dispute. 

Q.  (By  Mr.  Kennedy.)  I would  like  to  ask  you  if  there  are 
any  railroads  in  Illinois  that  stand  in  the  light  of  operators  or 
owners  of  mines,  and  that  take  part  by  representatives  in  these 
conferences? — A.  No;  if  any  railroad  company  has  ever  taken 
part  in  any  of  the  conferences  in  the  joint  meeting  of  miners  and 
operators,  th,e  fact  has  never  been  made  known. 

Q.  Are  there  any  railroads  that  own  mines  in  the  State  of 

16 


Illinois? — A.  There  are  no  railroads  in  the  State  of  Illinois  that 
admit  owning  any  coal  mines.  There  is  no  evidence  whatever 
that  any  of  the  railroads  own  any  coal  mines, 

Q.  (By  Mr.  Clarke.)  Does  this  interstate  movement  have 
anything  to  do  with  fixing  the  price  of  coal? — A.  Nothing  what- 
ever. 

Q.  Has  its  effect  generally  been  to  raise  wages  pr  to  depress 
them? — A.  It  has  been  to  raise  wages. 

Q.  Does  not  that  have  its  bearing  on  the  price  of  coal? — A. 
Naturally. 

Q.  Has  coal  increased  in  price  appreciably  since  this  move- 
ment was  entered  into? — A.  At  some  points  coal  was  abnor- 
mally low,  perhaps;  at  other  points  it  was  abnormally  high. 
The  system  has  had  rather  a leveling  tendency,  in  my  opinion. 
By  a more  equitable  distribution  of  the  trade  in  coal  it  has  had 
the  effect  of  possibly  sustaining  prices  without  sustaining  them 
artificially. 

Q.  Has  anybody  ever  called  it  a trust? — A.  No. 

Q.  (By  Mr.  Litchman.)  Has  there  been  any  advance  in  the 
wages  for  the  season  of  1901  over  wages  paid  in  1900? — A.  No. 

Q.  Was  there  any  advance  in  1900  over  the  wages  previously 
paid? — A.  There  was  an  advance  in  1900  of  from  7 to  11  cents 
a ton  in  the  mining  scale  and  from  20  to  25  per  cent  in  the  wages 
for  what  is  known  as  day  men;  that  is,  men  who  work  by  the  day. 

Q.  I saw  the  statement  attributed  to  Mr.  Mitchell,  president 
of  the  Mine  Workers’  organization,  that  this  increase  for  the 
region  covered  by  your  agreement  amounted  to  about  $20,000,- 
000  in  the  year.  Would  you  think  that  a fair  statement? — A. 
Well,  for  a year? 

Q.  For  the  year  1900? — A.  The  aggregate  product  in  those 
four  States  was  about  270,000,000  tons.  Now,  I think  it  is 
fair  to  say  that  the  advance  was  25  per  cent,  taking  the  mining- 
scale  and  the  day-wage  scale.  Of  course  it  is  simply  a matter 
of  arithmetic,  and  the  accuracy  of  Mr.  Mitchell’s  statement 
could  be  easily  tested.  I would  say  that  $20,000,000  seems 
possibly  a little  bit  high,  but  at  the  same  time  it  is  not  very  far 
from  that. 

Q.  Approximately  it  was  that? — A.  Yes.  An  advance  was 
obtained  also  two  years  prior  to  1900.  From  1897  a material 
advance  was  obtained  in  1898,  and  then  an  advance  in  1900;  no 
advance  in  1901.* 

*What  Mr.  John  Mitchell  said  was,  that  “in  the  year  1900  the  miners  of  the 
United  States  secured  an  advance  in  wages,  through  joint  agreement  with  the 
operators,  amounting  to,  approximately,  twenty  million  dollars.  These  figures 
are  obtained  by  taking  the  total  number  of  tons  of  coal  produced,  which  was, 
approximately,  two  hundred  million,  and  estimating  the  advance  at  ten  cents 
per  ton,  which  would  be  a fair  basis  for  run- of -mine  coal.”  The  statement  itself 
was  made  for  the  purpose  of  showing  that  where  the  people  on  both  sides  of  the 
labor  question  meet  in  joint  conference  and  are  governed  in  their  actions  by  rea- 
son, logic  and  facts,  laboring  men  can  secure  increased  wages  without  the 
necessity  of  strikes. 


17 


X 


Q.  Was  not  the  advance  of  1898,  however,  a restoration  of 
the  previous  reduction? — A.  Well,  of  course  it  was  the  result 
of  the  strike  that  had  taken  place — the  strike  of  1897. 

Q.  Do  you  think  that  the  result  of  these  conferences  has 
been  to  produce  a better  understanding  between  the  operators 
and  the  men? — A.  Very  much  better. 

Q.  Do  you  think  the  feeling  in  that  section  covered  by  the 
four  States  is  a result  of  this  coming  together? — A.  It  is.  I can 
speak  with  confidence  of  Illinois.  I know  that  the  relations  are 
far  more  cordial  than  they  have  been  at  any  time. 

Q.  Have  you  any  means  of  getting  the  number  of  opera- 
tives coming  within  the  scope  of  the  system  in  the  four  States? 
— A.  About  175,000. 

Q.  Is  that  number  greater  at  the  present  time  than  during 
1897?— A.  Well,  slightly. 

Q.  Is  it  much  greater  than  it  was  in  1895? — A.  Greater  than 
in  1895,  yes;  somewhat  greater  than  in  1897,  but  exactly  how 
much  I am  not  able  to  tell. 

Q.  Has  machinery  to  any  great  extent  been  introduced  in  the 
mining  of  coal  in  these  four  States? — A.  Yes, 

Q.  And  what  has  been  the  effect  of  the  introduction  of  the 
machines  in  their  relation  to  the  number  of  men  employed?— 
A.  Where  they  have  been  able  to  operate  them  successfully,  of 
course  it  has  had  the  effect  of  reducing  the  number  of  men.  In 
Illinois  the  operation  of  machines  has  not  been  very  successful, 
so  far  as  operators  are  concerned,  because  of  the  opposition  of  the 
miners  to  the  machines.  They  insist  on  pick  mining,  claiming 
that  they  can  make  better  wages  even  with  the  reduced  differen- 
tial in  that  State. 

Q.  Has  the  thickness  of  the  vein  anything  to  do  with  the 
success  of  the  machines? — A.  The  thicker  the  veins  the  more 
successfully  the  machines  work.  Now  in  the  northern  section 
of  Iilinois  they  use  no  machines  at  all,  but/  they  are  used  in  the 
southern  and  central  part  of  the  State. 

Q.  Has  this  agreement  between  operatives  and  operators  had 
any  effect  upon  the  number  of  days’  work  in  the  year  secured  by 
the  operatives? — A.  It  has  not  in  the  State  of  Illinois;  but  what 
its  effect  has  been  in  other  States  I can  not  tell. 

Q.  Do  you  think  that  the  number  of  days’  work  the  men  are 
employed  is  greater  than  it  was  in  1894,  1895,  and  1896? — A.  Yes. 

Q.  That  would  be  due  possibly  to  the  increase A.  (In- 

terrupting) Expansion  and  improvement  of  trade;  yes. 

Q.  I asked  you  to  state  something  about  the  agreement 
under  which  you  work.  Let  me  see  if  I understand  that  agree- 
ment. As  I understand  it,  you,  as  representing  the  employers, 
are  given  full  authority  to  arbitrate  any  difficulty  that  may 
arise? — A.  Yes. 

Q.  That  you  meet  in  that  arbitration  some  representative  of 
the  workingmen  at  the  head  of  the  organization,  or  someone  in 


18 


the  locality  where  that  work  is  located,  and  that  you  as  rep- 
resentative of  the  employers  and  the  representative  of  the  em- 
ployees come  together,  and  if  you  two  agree  that  is  the  final 
settlement? — A.  Yes;  that  is  final. 

Q.  (By  Mr.  Kennedy.)  I should  like  to  ask  you  if  the  in- 
fluence of  these  agreements  has  spread  into  the  States  of  Iowa, 
Kansas,  Kentucky,  and  West  Virginia  to  any  extent? — A.  It 
has.  Kentucky  has  adopted  almost  verbatim  the  language  of 
our  State  agreements.  The  State  of  Iowa  has  also  patterned 
after  our  agreement  of  1900. 

Q.  (By  Mr.  Litchman.)  Is  there  any  objection  to  stating 
why  the  operators  were  unwilling  to  admit  Iowa  and  Michigan 
into  the  convention? — A.  I have  not  any  objection.  The 
objection  comes  chiefly,  of  course,  from  the  East.  If  Iowa  and 
Michigan  were  admitted  it  might  possibly  mean  that  Pennsyl- 
vania and  Ohio’s  influence  in  the  interstate  movement  would 
not  be  so  well  balanced  with  the  West  as  it  is  today.  The  con- 
tention of  Pennsylvania  and  Ohio  has  been  from  the  start  that 
no  other  State  should  be  admitted  into  the  interstate  move- 
ment until  West  Virginia  was  brought  in.  That  you  will  find  very 
fully  set  forth  in  the  discussion  of  the  subject  at  the  interstate 
convention  which  was  held  at  Columbus  in  January.* 

Q.  Is  there  any  movement  under  way  toward  securing  the 
co-operation  of  the  West  Virginia  coal  fields,  either  on  the  part 
of  operators  or  on  the  part  of  the  men  employed,  so  far  as  you 
know? — A.  The  miners’  organization  is  endeavoring  to  bring 
the  miners  of  that  State  into  the  organization,  but  so  far  as  I 
was  able  to  judge  from  the  discussion  at  Columbus  the  success  so 
far  has  not  been  very  great.  No  effort,  in  my  opinion,  has  been 
made  at  all  on  the  part  of  the  operators  to  bring  West  Virginia 
into  the  movement. 

Q.  The  product  of  West  Virginia  comes  in  direct  competition 
with  Pennsylvania  and  Ohio? — A.  Yes;  and  also  with  that  of 
Indiana  and  Illinois. 

Q.  So  much  so  as  Pennsylvania? — A.  Not  so  much  so,  but 
it  comes  largely  into  competition.  West  Virginia  coal  is  sold  to 
a very  large  extent  now  in  the  Chicago  market,  and  the  Chicago 
market  formerly  was  the  chief  distributing  point  for  Indiana 
and  Illinois  coal. 

Q.  What  would  you  say  as  to  the  competition  at  the  sea- 
board?— A.  As  to  the  competition  at  the  seaboard  I am  not 
prepared  to  speak.  I imagine,  of  course,  that  the  competition 
as  between  West  Virginia  and  Pennsylvania  and  Ohio  is  very 


*Also  because  even  with  only  four  States  the  interests  are  so  diverse  that 
under  the  unit  rule  it  is  exceedingly  difficult  to  reach  an  agreement  in  joint  inter- 
state conventions,  and  the  problem  would  become  still  more  intricate  with 
other  States  added,  and  might  under  the  unit  rule  become  insoluble ; while, 
without  the  protection  of  the  unit  rule,  perhaps  no  State  would  be  willing  to 
enter  the  convention  at  all, 


19 


sharp,  but  as  to  the  competition  of  Illinois  and  Indiana  with 
West  Virginia  at  the  seaboard  I am  not  able  to  say. 

Q.  It  would  seem  to  be  for  the  interest  of  the  operators  as  well 
as  the  men  to  have  West  Virginia  brought  into  the  agreements, 
then,  would  it  not? — A.  I should  not  care  to  express  myself  on 
that  subject,  because,  as  I said  before,  I am  not  sufficiently 
familiar  with  that  phase  of  the  subject  to  make  my  opinion 
worth  anything.  Besides,  it  might  be  a little  embarrassing  for 
me  as  representative  of  the  operators  of  only  one  State.  It 
might  appear  that  I was  criticizing  the  operators  in  another 
State. 

Q.  I might  ask  the  question  more  with  reference  to  the 
sentiment  among  the  people  whom  you  represent  toward  such 
a union  of  interest  ? — A.  The  operators  of  the  W est  would  be 
very  glad  to  see  West  Virginia  in  the  movement. 

Q.  That  is  the  point  I wish  to  bring  out.— A.  Yes;  I would 
not  hesitate  to  say  to  an  operator  in  Pennsylvania  exactly 
what  I think  in  regard  to  the  matter,  but  I should  not  like  to 
appear  as  criticizing  the  course  they  pursue  and  the  stand  they 
take. 

k Q.  (By  Mr.  Kennedy.)  Is  it  the  cheaper  labor  cost  in  West 
Virginia  that  enables  the  operators  to  send  their  coal  to  Illinois 
in  competition  with  that  of  Illinois? — A.  That  is  the  contention. 

Q.  That  is  one  very  strong  reason  why  the  operators  in 
these  Western  States  would  like  to  see  West  Virginia  in  the 
agreement? — A.  Yes. 

Q.  (By  Mr.  Clarke.)  Is  it  not  a fact  that  there  is  consider- 
able difference  between  the  two  coals? — A.  Yes;  but  the  scale 
of  wages  is  always  fixed  differentially;  that  is  to  say,  if  there  is  a 
difference  in  the  coal  there  is  a difference  in  the  mining  scale. 
For  example,  the  rate  is  much  higher  for  the  thin  veins  than  the 
thick  veins,  although  it  is  fixed  on  a competitive  basis;  it  is  not 
fixed  at  all  on  the  earning  capacity  of  the  men,  because  in  the 
northern  part  of  Illinois  if  a man  averaged  $2.25  or  $2.50  a day 
he  would  be  making  a fair  average,  while  in  the  southern  part 
of  the  State,  where  the  veins  are  thick,  the  men  of  course  could 
earn  much  larger  wages,  provided  they  worked  as  regularly  as 
in  the  northern  field. 

Q.  My  question  did  not  have  reference  to  the  thinness  or  the 
thickness  of  the  veins  or  to  the  ease  with  which  the  coal  can  be 
mined  in  either,  but  with  reference  to  the  quality  of  the  coal 
for  certain  uses.  For  example,  is  it  not  a fact  that  much  of  the 
West  Virginia  coal  is  more  on  the  cannel  order,  and  is  used  for 
household  use  in  preference  to  the  soft  coal  of  Illinois? — A.  Yes, 
I presume  that  is  true,  but  I do  not  believe  that  that  class  of 
coal  to  which  you  refer  is  one  that  comes  in  competition  with 
the  Illinois  coal.  The  coal  that  is  used  for  steam  purposes 
comes  in  competition  with  Illinois  coal. 

Q.  (By  Mr.  Kennedy.)  Do  your  people  understand  that  the 


20 


Chesapeake  and  Ohio  Railroad  is  giving  abnormally  low  rates 
for  the  purpose  of  getting  that  coal  into  the  Chicago  markets  ? 
—A.  It  may  be  known,  of  course,  to  the  operators,  but  as  I 
said  before,  the  question  of  the  price  of  coal  is  something  about 
which  I do  not  concern  myself  at  all.  I purposely  avoid  having 
any  part  either  in  the  fixing  of  the  scale  of  wages  or  in  determin- 
ing the  selling  price  of  coal,  because  I think  that  if  I should  take 
any  part  in  the  matter  in  establishing  the  scale  of  wages  and 
mining  conditions  or  the  selling  price  it  would  be  more  difficult 
for  me  to  deal  justly  and  fairly  when  a dispute  arises  between 
the  operators  and  miners.  It  is  distinctly  understood  in  our 
State  organization  that  the  association  is  to  have  nothing  what- 
ever to  do  with  the  selling  part  of  the  coal  business. 

Q.  In  reply  to  a question  a while  ago,  I believe  it  was  not 
plain  from  your  statement  that  the  increased  wages  of  the 
miners  were  put  upon  the  consumer  in  the  increase  in  the  price 
of  coal.  Other  witnesses  at  Chicago  on  this  same  subject  un- 
doubtedly said  that  that  is  where  increased  wages  are  put. — A. 
It  is  possible  they  are  right.  The  advance,  however,  is  not 
appreciable,  except  in  so  far  as  there  is  an  advance  taking  place 
possibly  in  every  other  commodity.  The  cost  of  living  is  higher. 
There  is  not  an  article  a miner  buys,  or  anyone  else,  that  does 
not  cost  more  money  than  it  cost  before  the  advance  in  wages  to 
which  you  refer.  But  the  mere  fact  of  the  joint  agreement,  in 
my  opinion,  does  not  act  in  any  way  as  a tax  upon  the  public.  On 
the  contrary,  it  makes  the  conditions  of  trade  more  stable,  it 
establishes  a fairer  scale  of  wages,  and  it  insures  to  the  different 
operators  greater  safety  in  their  business.  They  are  enabled 
to  operate  the  mines  a greater  number  of  days,  and  that  gives 
to  the  miners  steadier  work  and  so  increases  the  volume  of  busi- 
ness of  the  country.  In  every  way  the  system  seems  to  me  to 
be  a great  help  to  the  public,  because  upon  the  steady  employ- 
ment and  upon  the  fair  wages  of  the  masses  depends  the  prosper- 
ity of  our  country. 

Q.  (By  Mr.  Litchman.)  How  is  the  expense  of  this  com- 
mission of  yours  met? — A.  An  assessment  is  levied  upon  the  ton- 
nage of  every  mine  in  the  State  belonging  to  the  association — 
so  much  for  every  thousand  tons. 

Q.  What  contribution  comes  from  the  workmen? — A.  None 
whatever.  They  sustain  their  own  organization. 

Q.  You  have  submitted  here  various  printed  documents. 
Are  these  supplied  by  your  association? — A.  These  are  supplied 
by  our  association  exclusively. 

Q.  Are  they  paid  for  by  your  association? — A.  Yes;  they 
are  paid  for  by  the  association  of  the  operators. 

Q.  (By  Mr.  Farquhar.)  You  have  taken  quite  an  interest 
and  have  been  personally  present  at  quite  a number  of  confer- 
ences here  in  respect  to  arbitration.  State  and  national.  What 
have  you  to  say  as  to  any  proposition  that  would  lead  to  what 


21 


you  would  call  national  arbitration,  as  far  as  all  manufacturing 
and  productive  interests  of  the  country  are  concerned? — A. 
Whatever  form  of  arbitration  or  conciliation  we  may  adopt, 
it  should  be  purely  voluntary.  It  should  be  arbitration  or 
conciliation  within  the  respective  industries  involved.  I have 
made  a few  notes  on  that  particular  phase  of  the  subject,  which, 
maybe,  it  would  be  best  for  me  to  read. 

(Reading:) 

“Need  of  a National  Organization. — We  have  reached  a 
period  in  industrial  evolution  where  men  on  both  the  employer 
and  the  labor  side  are  looking  for  points  of  agreement  instead 
of  looking,  as  was  once  the  case,  for  differences.  Under  the  old 
dispensation  it  was  strife  and  war  and  injustice;  under  the  new 
dispensation  it  can  and  will  be  peace,  prosperity,  and  justice. 

“Not  only  we  here  in  our  own  land,  but  men  all  over  the 
world,  are  looking  for  some  way  to  remove  the  costly  and 
annoying  conflicts  between  employer  and  employee.  We  believe 
that  plan  will  be  found  in  our  country,  and  it  will  be  a simple, 
just  and  effective  plan.  Conciliation,  mediation,  or  arbitration 
should  be  sought,  where  it  is  at  all  possible,  before  a strike  or 
lockout,  and  not  afterwards.  An  earnest  effort  should  always 
be  made  to  settle  differences  and  disputes  as  near  their  source  as 
possible,  and  at  once,  before  calling  in  outside  help.  The  pros- 
perity of  our  nation  is  built  upon  steady  and  profitable  employ- 
ment for  the  toiling  masses.  It  is  therefpre  a mutual  benefit  to 
employer  and  employee  that  wages  be  fair,  employment  steady, 
and  conditions  of  life  agreeable.  There  should  be  and  there  is 
no  objection  from  intelligent  sources  today,  we  believe,  to 
paying  for  the  best  service  of  which  the  laborer  is  capable  the 
maximum  of  wages,  for  in  no  other  way  is  the  aggregate  wealth 
of  the  nation  so  legitimately,  so  securely,  and  so  fairly  increased. 

“Differences  do  not,  as  a rule,  arise  because  this  principle  is 
disputed,  but  because  employer  and  employee  too  often  go 
about  the  work  in  a bungling  and  blundering  way. 

“By  organization  we  must  secure  the  services  of  men  of 
experience,  courage,  and  enthusiasm  to  study  the  needs  of  our 
times  and  to  determine  the  remedy  which  must  be  supplied  for 
the  conflicts  of  laborers  and  employees  best  suited  to  different 
industries  and  for  varying  conditions.  This  work,  in  fact,  must 
be  delegated  to  a body  of  men  trained  to  deal  with  it,  for  they 
must  do  what  neither  the  busy  American  business  man  nor  the 
workingman  has  the  time  to  do  himself. 

“ How  to  Prevent  Strikes  and  Lockouts. — 1.  Inasmuch  as 
the  laborers  have  organized,  the  organization  of  the  employer 
class  is  a prerequisite  to  the  solution  of  the  labor  problem.  Thus, 
two  great  bodies  being  equally  matched  will  respect  each  other 
for  reasons  that  must  be  apparent.  They  will  be  forced  to 
maintain  pleasant  business  relations  and  to  adopt  conciliatory 
methods  in  the  treatment  of  all  such  differences  and  disputes  as 
may  arise. 


“2.  The  several  great  industries  of  the  country  should 
organize  to  promote  general  plans  for  each  industry  where 
their  interests  are  common.  Then  if,  as  in  the  coal  trade,  the 
interests  are  too  vast  to  admit  of  control  by  a single  commission, 
then  these  interests  should  be  subdivided  and  commissions 
established  capable  of  giving  them  proper  supervision,  it  being 
important  that  differences  and  disputes  be  settled  as  near  their 
source  as  possible. 

“3.  Trade  agreements  between  these  organizations  in  the 
respective  industries  for  fixed  periods  of  time,  say  for  one  or 
two  years,  will  prove,  as  they  have  proven  in  the  bituminous 
coal  industry,  a mighty  agency  in  promoting  industrial  peace. 
Even  where  the  employers  have  not  properly  organized  them- 
selves into  active  working  bodies,  this  system  of  trade  agree- 
ments has  proven  a great  benefit  to  both  employers  and 
employees. 

“But  it  should  be  borne  in  mind  that  these  organizations 
should  deal  with  the  labor  question  and  with  no  other.  To 
undertake  to  regulate  prices  of  the  different  products  of  in- 
dustry would  be  destruction  to  the  system.” 

Q.  (By  Mr.  Farquhar.)  These  various  conferences  in  refer- 
ence to  arbitration  and  conciliation  were  originated  by  the 
Civic  Federation  of  Chicago? — A.  The  National  Civic  Federa- 
tion of  Chicago.  The  first  conference  was  held  in  Chicago  on 
December  the  17th  and  18th  of  last  year,  and  in  that  the  repre- 
sentatives of  the  employer  and  employee  class  participated. 
They  were  in  practical  accord  upon  the  one  general  idea  that 
some  plan  of  conciliation  rather  than  arbitration  was  necessary; 
that  it  should  be  some  simple  plan,  and  that  it  should  be  a 
purely  business  plan.  The  universal  sentiment  at  that  confer- 
ence was  that  conciliation  or  arbitration  should  always  precede 
and  not  follow  a strike  or  lockout.  The  idea  was  indorsed  that 
has  been  promulgated  in  the  State  of  Illinois,  that  pending 
every  investigation  the  men  and  works  should  continue  in 
operation. 

Q.  (By  Mr.  Clarke.)  You  say  conciliation  should  precede 
and  not  follow? — A.  Yes. 

Q.  If  it  fails  to  precede,  may  it  not  follow? — A.  Certainly;  but 
it  is  much  preferable,  much  easier  to  settle  a difficulty  that  has 
not  already  resulted  in  open  conflict. 

Q.  (By  Mr.  Farquhar.)  To  those  who  participated  in  the 
original  conference,  how  many  additions  did  you  find  at  New 
York  conference? — A.  That  is  extremely  difficult  to  say,  but  we 
found  at  the  conference  at  Chicago  quite  a number  of  men  prom- 
inent both  in  the  industries  of  the  country  and  in  labor  circles, 
that  did  not  participate  in  the  conference  at  New  York. 

Q.  (By  Mr.  Litchman.)  But  you  found  more  in  New  York 
than  in  Chicago. — A.  Yes;  and  there  were  men  present  at  New 
York  who  were  not  present  at  Chicago. 


23 


Q.  (By  Mr.  Farquhar.)  You  said  very  distinctly  in  your 
paper  and  remarks  there  that  you  believe  it  is  trade  conciliation 
and  arbitration ? — A.  Yes, 

Q.  Has  your  conference  taken  a step  beyond  that  in  reaching 
toward  compulsory  arbitration? — A.  It  has  opposed  compul- 
sory arbitration. 

Q.  Opposed  it? — A.  Yes. 

Q.  You  have  quite  an  experience  in  coal  mining;  do  you 
think  it  is  the  natural  way  for  these  matters  of  conciliation  or 
arbitration  to  be  entirely  in  the  trade  affected  and  the  persons 
affected? — A.  To  me  it  seems  natural  and  best. 

Q.  So  you  do  not  look  with  much  favor  on  State  boards  of 
arbitration  made  up  of  men  who  know  nothing  of  the  trade  con- 
ditions or  the  technicality  of  the  business? — A.  I do  not.  In 
the  first  place,  unless  under  State  arbitration  the  decrees  of  the 
board  can  be  enforced  they  are  practically  of  no  value.  They 
are  not  respected  as  arbitration  is  respected  where  it  has  been 
rendered  by  individuals  who  are  unofficial,  who  do  not  act  in  any 
official  capacity,  but  who  understand  the  industry  involved  and 
its  conditions.  Take,  for  example,  the  State  of  Illinois.  Dur- 
ing the  past  year  there  has  not  been  a single  case  referred  to  the 
State  board  of  arbitration.  They  have  endeavored  to  exercise, 
and  have  exercised  their  influence  for  conciliation,  but  if,  for 
example,  a coal  operator  was  willing  to  submit  a case  for 
arbitration,  a miner  would  not,  and  if  a miner  wanted  to  refer  a 
case  to  that  board  for  arbitration,  the  operator  would  not.  I do 
not  intend  this  as  any  reflection  upon  the  present  board.  My 
criticism  is  upon  the  system  itself. 

Q.  Now,  if  the  policy  of  conciliation  and  arbitration  was  on  a 
trade  basis — the  carpenters,  bricklayers,  etc. — could  your  unfor- 
tunate building  strike  have  occurred  in  Chicago  if  that  had  been 
the  means  of  settling  these  troubles? — A.  I think  not.  It 
seems  to  me  that  there  should  be  a national  organization  that 
will  take  in  hand  this  whole  question  of  conciliation  or  arbi- 
tration. Not  that  this  national  organization  will  always 
arbitrate  or  conciliate,  but  it  will  bring  together  the  leaders  of 
thought  on  the  side  of  labor  and  on  the  employers’  side,  and 
they  could  agree  upon  certain  fixed  principles  that  when  once 
established  by  the  leaders  will  be  consented  to  by  those  who 
follow.  Now,  simply  to  give  you  an  illustration  of  what  I 
mean,  the  disposition  of  labor  leaders  a year  ago  was  to  entourage 
the  sympathetic  strike.  I do  not  believe  that  there  is  a reput- 
able leader  oi  labor  in  the  United  States  today  who  is  willing  to 
subscribe  to  the  idea  of  the  sympathetic  strike,  because  it 
immediately  invalidates  these  agreements  that  are  entered  into 
between  the  employer  and  employee.  If,  for  example,  in  the 
coal  trade,  the  operators  and  the  miners  made  an  agreement, 
and  the  carpenters  in  an  adjoining  town  were  on  a strike,  there 
would  be,  under  the  old  system  of  sympathetic  strike,  no  gain  at 


24 


all  by  the  operator  and  miner  entering  into  an  agreement, 
because  the  fact  that  here  was  a man  who  had  a difference  or 
dispute  with  his  employer  would  immediately  render  void  the 
agreement  in  another  industry,  where  all  conditions  are  per- 
fectly satisfactory.  Then,  too,  it  seems  to  me,  that  a national 
organization  of  that  sort  would  have  the  effect  of  determining 
what  class  of  labor  shall  be  allotted  to  these  respective  organiza- 
tions. For  example,  the  Mine  Workers’  Union  for  a number 
of  years  has  endeavored  to  bring  into  their  organization  every 
man  working  in  or  about  a mine.  They  have  endeavored  to 
bring  in  all  the  men  employed  on  construction  work,  and  to 
bring  in  the  watchmen  and  hoisting  engineers.  Now,  the 
watchman  is  and  should  be  a strictly  company  man;  the 
hoisting  engineers  have  an  organization  of  their  own.  Then 
the  hoisting  engineers  have  a class  of  labor  altogether  differ- 
ent from  that  of  the  men  in  the  mine.  There  are  more  repre- 
sentative of  the  direct  interests  of  the  company;  they  have  so 
much  more  on  their  shoulders;  their  responsibility  is  so  much 
greater  that  they  ought  not  to  be  merged  with  an  organization 
where  they  are  possibly  outnumbered  100  or  200  to  1. 

Q.  (By  Mr.  Litchman).  Have  you  gone  far  enough  to  con- 
sider a situation  where  one  side  or  the  other  desires  to  have  an 
investigation  leading  to  conciliation,  possibly  to  arbitration,  and 
the  other  side  refuses  to  permit  such  a thingf  For  instance,  on 
a great  line  of  railway,  on  a line  of  street  railway,  the  men  have 
a grievance,  or  think  they  have — the  result  is  the  same  to  them 
whether  it  is  real  or  fancied — and  they  ask  that  that  grievance 
be  investigated,  and  the  request  is  peremptorily  refused  by  the 
corporation.  How  would  you  reach  a case  like  that  unless  you 
had  some  law  that  would  compel  the  inception  of  conciliation  ? 
— A.  I think  public  opinion  is  sufficiently  potent  to  accomplish 
that. 

Q.  Has  it  been  so? — A.  I think  so.  Of  course  the  St.  Louis 
strike  wore  itself  out,  but  in  the  Albany  street  railway  strike 
now  in  progress,  very  likely  public  sentiment  will  force  both 
sides  to  consent  to  conciliation  or  arbitration  of  some  kind. 

Q.  But  you  have  already  cited  the  St.  Louis  strike,  where 
public  sentiment  was  certainly  in  favor  of  the  men  and  yet  the 
companies  refused  to  arbitrate  even  to  the  last,  and  the  strike  was 
a failure.  Why  could  there  not  be  some  power,  not  to  compel 
arbitration,  but  to  compel  the  inception  of  the  conciliation, 
at  least  to  the  extent  of  an  inquiry  into  the  rights  or  wrongs  of 
the  disputef — A.  No  doubt  there  should  be  some  way  of  insti- 
tuting the  inquiry,  but  to  compel  arbitration 

Q.  (Interrupting.)  I am  not  asking  you  that.  I am  asking 
now  in  the  quasi-public  corporations? — A.  Yes. 

Q.  Where  there  are  three  sides  to  the  dispute — the  men  em- 
ployed, the  people  who  employ,  and  the  public  at  large — the 
only  recourse  now  is  to  strike,  if  one  side  or  the  other  refuses  to 


25 


conciliate ? — A.  I take  it  that  some  law  will  be  necessary  where 
corporations  are  concerned  which  have  public  functions  to 
perform,  for  instituting  inquiry  into  the  cause. 

Q.  You  see  no  harm,  then,  in  a law  of  that  kind? — A.  No. 

Q.  But  would  not  favor  a law  that  would  compel  arbitra- 
tion?— A.  No. 

Q.  I wanted  to  draw  that  distinction,  that  is  all? — A.  I see. 

Q.  (By  Mr.  Farquhar.)  The  matter  you  are  just  discussing 
rests  on  this  fact,  that  as  a general  thing  the  employers  of  labor 
will  not  recognize  the  unions  or  organized  bodies  of  men.  Don’t 
you  find  that  is  your  greatest  trouble  in  getting  these  agree- 
ments, the  non-recognition  of  organized  labor  in  making  agree- 
ments?— A.  That  is  the  great  difficulty  in  the  matter  of  organi- 
zation of  the  employer  class,  because  a large  percentage  of  the 
employers  of  labor  are  not  willing  to  recognize  organized  labor. 

Q.  And  yet,  don’t  you  think  there  are  some  business  reasons 
why  the  operators  of  great  plants  or  industries  feel  a disinclina- 
tion to  make  the  agreements,  because  the  markets  of  various  zones 
of  different  geographical  sections,  are  so  dissimilar  that  any- 
thing like  a uniform  scale  would  work  harm  to  the  community  ? 
— A.  Undoubtedly. 

Q.  And  is  it  not  a fact  that  even  among  capitalists  them- 
selves— the  owners  of  great  industries,  in  stove  manufacturing, 
or  something  of  that  kind — they  have  so  many  troubles  among 
themselves  as  owners  of  great  plants  and  sellers  of  commodities 
that  it  is  almost  impossible  for  them  to  reach  an  arrangement 
with  the  workingmen? — A,  Yes;  but  in  the  industry  to  which 
you  refer,  the  stove  industry,  they  have  an  organization  of  the 
employer  class. 

Q.  But  before  they  had  it  they  had  many  strikes? — A.  They 
came  with  painful  frequency. 

Q.  Was  there  any  trade  in  the  United  States  that  had  as 
many  strikes  as  the  stove  molders? — A.  None,  that  is  true;  they 
were  very  disastrous. 

Q.  But  does  not  that  enter  a good  deal  into  the  difficulty  of 
making  your  arrangements  that  you  can  not  get  the  operators 
or  the  owners  to  agree  even  among  themselves  before  they  agree 
with  the  operatives? — A.  Yes;  for  example,  in  the  coal  industry 
the  operators  have  not  always  agreed  among  themselves.* 

Q.  Is  not  the  matter  of  self-interest  among  employers,  in- 
dependent of  this  non-recognition  of  organized  labor,  one  of  the 
greatest  difficulties  in  getting  your  agreements  that  you  are 
looking  for  through  your  national  organization? — A.  Un- 
doubtedly. 

*In  Illinois,  for  example,  the  coal  operators  were  utterly  unable  to  agree  as 
between  the  different  districts,  or  even  (with  the  single  exception  of  northern 
Illinois)  as  between  the  miners  of  any  given  district,  until  compelled  by  the 
State  Miners’  organization  to  agree  with  them.  The  common  need,  as  against 
an  aggressive  labor  organization,  brought  the  coal  operators  of  Illinois  together. 


2(> 


Q.  You  think  it  is  a matter  of  bringing  together  and  dis- 
cussing these  things  that  will  ultimately  clear  the  ground  for  the 
agreement  between  the  workingman  and  the  capitalist f — A. 
It  is  only  a question  of  time.  After  these  matters  have  been 
discussed  with  intelligence  and  calmness,  it  is  only  a question  of 
time  when  they  will  right  themselves,  and,  as  I said  before, 
some  simple  and  effective  plan  will  be  found.  Now,  no  plan 
will  be  found  that  is  applicable  alike  to  all  industries  or  to  all 
sections,  but  some  general  principles  can  be  laid  down  by  the 
employers  of  labor  and  by  organized  labor  jointly  that  will  have 
the  effect  which  we  desire. 

There  is  one  thing  I neglected  to  say  in  speaking  of  the  Illinois 
plan  which  perhaps  I had  better  submit  now.  That  is  this,  that 
the  last  clause  of  the  existing  agreement  provides — and  we 
found  that  this  had  a very  wholesome  effect — that  “There  shall 
be  no  demands  made  locally  that  are  not  specifically  set  forth 
in  this  agreement,  except  as  agreed  to  in  joint  subdistrict 
meetings  held  prior  to  May  1,  1901.  Where  no  subdistriets 
exist,  local  grievances  shall  be  referred  to  the  United  Mine 
Workers’  State  executive  board  and  the  mine  owners  interested.” 

(Testimony  closed.) 


27 


APPENDIX. 


DECISION  OF  COMMISSION  SELECTED  BY  THE  OPER= 
ATORS  AND  MINERS  OF  THE  DANVILLE  SUB=DIS= 
TRICT  TO  INTERPRET  THE  SIXTEENTH 
CLAUSE  OF  THE  CURRENT  STATE 
AGREEMENT. 


Chicago,  April  27,  1901. 

Mr.  0.  L.  Garrison , President , 

The  Illinois  Coal  Operators  Association. 

Mr.  W.  R.  Russell , President , 

United  Mine-Workers  of  America , District  N o.  12. 


Gentlemen: — The  operators  and  miners  in  the  Danville  sub- 
district adopted  an  agreement  for  the  scale  year  beginning 
April  1,  1901,  in  which  is  included  the  sixteenth  clause  of  the 
current  State  agreement,  as  follows: 

“16th.  (a)  The  scale  of  prices  herein  provided  shall  include, 
except  in  extraordinary  conditions,  the  work  required  to  load 
coal  and  properly  timber  the  working  places  in  the  mine,  and 
the  operator  shall  be  required  to  furnish  the  necessary  props 
and  timber  in  rooms  or  working  face.  And  in  long  wall  mines 
it  shall  include  the  proper  mining  of  the  coal  and  the  brushing 
and  care  of  the  working  places  and  roadway  according  to  the 
present  method  and  rules  relating  thereto,  which  shall  con- 
tinue unchanged. 

“ (b)  If  any  miner  shall  fail  to  properly  timber  and  care  for 
his  working  place,  and  such  failure  shall  entail  falls  of  slate, 
rock  and  the  like,  or  if  by  reckless  or  improper  shooting  of  the 
coal  in  room  and  pillar  mines,  the  mine  props  and  other  timbers 
shall  be  disturbed  or  unnecessary  falls  result,  the  miner  whose 
fault  has  occasioned  such  damage  shall  repair  the  same  without 
compensation;  and  if  such  miner  fails  to  repair  such  damage, 
he  shall  be  discharged. 


28 


“In  cases  where  the  mine  manager  directs  the  placing  of 
cross-bars  to  permanently  secure  the  roadway,  then,  and  in 
such  cases  only,  the  miner  shall  be  paid  at  the  current  price  for 
each  cross-bar  when  properly  set. 

“ The  above  does  not  contemplate  any  change  from  the  ordi- 
nary method  of  timbering  by  the  miner  for  his  own  safety.” 

When  it  came  to  working  under  the  district  agreement 
numerous  disputes  arose  as  to  what  constituted  ordinary  and 
what  extraordinary  conditions;  that  is  to  say,  what  dead  work 
should  be  performed  by  the  miner  without  further  compensa- 
tion than  pay  for  the  coal  sent  out,  or  when,  in  the  meaning  of 
that  clause,  the  company  should  assume  the  dead  work  either 
by  having  company  men  perform  it,  or  allowing  the  miner  extra 
compensation  therefor.  There  was  also  a disagreement  as  to 
the  method  of  shearing  entry  coal. 

At  a joint  meeting  of  the  miners  and  operators  of  the  Dan- 
ville sub-district,  held  on  April  11,  and  which  was  also  attended 
by  the  State  officers  of  the  Mine  Workers’  Union  of  America, 
the  following  agreement  was  adopted: 

“That  the  questions  now  in  dispute  in  the  Danville  district, 
namely,  the  interpretation  and  application  of  the  sixteenth 
clause  of  the  Springfield  agreement  and  the  method  of  shearing 
the  entry  coal,  be  referred  to  Mr.  Mitchell  and  Mr.  Justi  for 
settlement,  and  their  decision  shall  be  binding.  Work  at  the 
mines  shall  resume  and  continue  pending  the  settlement  under 
the  agreement  of  1901  and  now  in  force.  In  case  the  decision 
is  against  the  operators,  the  miners  shall  be  paid  for  the  work 
done  under  protest. 

“The  parties  herein  named  are  to  take  up  the  matter  and 
dispose  of  it  at  once. 

“The  rock  down  in  the  places  at  the  resumption  of  work  is  to 
be  cleaned  up  by  the  operators.” 

In  accordance  with  the  foregoing  reference,  and  after  giving 
full  and  careful  consideration  to  the  various  contentions,  we 
submit  the  following  findings,  together  with  sundry  recommen- 
dations which  we  feel  convinced  will  obviate  most  of  the 
troubles  complained  of,  provided  both  operators  and  miners 
will  undertake  to  follow  them  in  a spirit  of  fairness. 

The  purpose  of  the  sixteenth  clause  in  the  State  agreement 
was,  undoubtedly,  to  confirm  and  make  effective  certain 
necessary  changes  or  reforms  of  abuses  which  were  promised  the 
operators  of  the  Danville  district,  along  with  the  other  operators 
of  Illinois,  when  the  interstate  settlement  was  made  at  Columbus 
this  year.  At  the  beginning  of  the  interstate  convention  the 
operators  were  asking  and  contending  for  a differential  in  the 
mining  price  at  Danville  as  against  competing  mines  in  Indiana; 
also  for  the  same  system  of  mining  prevailing  in  the  other  states, 
as  well  as  for  an  equivalent  machine  differential.  When  it 
became  apparent  that  an  interstate  agreement  for  another 


29 


year  could  only  be  reached  by  substantially  reaffirming  the 
Indianapolis  agreement,  it  developed  that  the  Danville  opera- 
tors contended  that  their  cost  of  producing  coal  had  been 
materially  increased  by  reason  of  local  exactions  in  the  way  of 
dead  work  growing  out  of  the  expense  of  handling  what  the 
operators  claimed  were  unnecessary  falls  of  rock  and  the  like. 
They  claimed  that  the  mine-run  system  had  not  only  injured 
the  quality  of  their  coal  by  reason  of  the  increased  percentage 
of  fine  coal  produced,  but  that  it  had  also  increased  the  amount 
of  dead  work  to  be  done  at  the  expense  of  the  company,  in  that 
the  miner  in  shooting  down  as  much  coal  as  he  could,  without 
any  regard  to  its  quality  or  to  the  proportion  of  fine  coal,  brought 
down  an  excessive  amount  of  rock  and  shot  out  an  excessive 
number  of  timbers  and  props.  This  increased  dead  work,  the 
result  of  the  miners’  own  carelessness  or  unworkmanlike 
methods,  had,  by  local  exactions  and  otherwise,  come  to  be 
saddled  on  the  operators,  and  they  could  not  see  their  way  to 
renew  the  Indianapolis  agreement  unless  they  were  promised 
some  relief.  This  relief  they  contended  should  be  such  as 
would  improve  the  quality  of  their  mine-run  coal  and  relieve 
them  of  such  dead  work  as  the  miner  should  reasonably  per- 
form as  a part  of  the  mining  price,  as  well  as  such  dead  work 
resulting  from  improper  mining  and  timbering.  In  other 
words,  the  ordinary  conditions  of  mining  taken  into  account, 
the  miner  should  assume,  in  consideration  of  the  mining 
price,  the  necessary  timbering  to  properly  secure  his  working 
place  and  the  ordinary  amount  of  dead  work,  such  as  handling 
rock  and  slate,  incident  to  the  production  of  marketable  coal; 
and  if  the  miner  disregarded  the  quality  of  his  product  and 
incurred  an  excessive  amount  of  dead  work,  they  contended 
that  it  was  not  proper  that  the  operators  should  be  penalized 
by  this  imposition  of  unnecessary  dead  work,  in  addition  to 
paying  the  miner  for  an  inferior  grade  of  mine-run  coal. 

In  view  of  this  contention  on  the  part  of  the  Illinois  operators, 
and  in  order  to  obtain  an  agreement  at  Columbus,  it  was  nec- 
essary to  give  them  assurance  that  these  abuses  would  be 
corrected  if  found  true.  When  the  Illinois  operators  met  at 
Springfield  the  matter  was  fully  discussed  and  clause  sixteen  of 
the  State  agreement  of  1901  was  the  result.  It  was  well 
understood,  when  this  clause  was  adopted,  that  it  was  intended 
to  reform  certain  abuses,  that  the  cost  of  producing  coal  in 
the  State  of  Illinois  should  not  be  thereby  increased,  but  rather 
reduced,  and  it  was  mutually  agreed  that  this  could  be  done 
without  materially  reducing  the  earnings  of  miners  who  did 
their  work  in  a skillful  and  conscientious  manner. 

In  the  prosecution  of  our  work  we  have  scrupulously  endeav- 
ored to  separate  ourselves  entirely  from  the  special  interests 
which  at  other  times  we  are  called  upon  to  serve,  and  to  deal 
with  the  case  submitted  to  us  with  judicial  fairness.  On 


April  23rd,  accompanied  by  the  State  and  sub-district  repre- 
sentatives of  the  United  Mine  Workers  and  representatives  of 
the  operators,  we  visited  four  different  mines,  viz.:  Himrod, 
Kelly’s  No.  2,  Catlin  and  Fairmont.  Under  the  guidance  of  the 
pit  committee  and  the  mine  foreman  we  made  a personal  inspec- 
tion of  the  conditions  of  the  working  places  to  assist  us  in 
determining  what  should  be  properly  defined  as  “ordinary”  or 
“extraordinary”  conditions  of  the  roof  in  working  places.  We 
also  secured  all  the  information  possible  from  the  pit  committees 
and  others  with  whom  we  came  in  contact.  At  the  conclusion 
of  our  investigations,  while  we  find  it  impracticable  to  define 
specifically  what  should  at  all  times  be  considered  an  “ordi- 
nary” or  “extraordinary”  -condition,  we  feel  that  much  of  the 
trouble  and  contention  has  often  been  occasioned  by  antagonism 
between,  the  miners  working  in  the  several  mines  and  their 
respective  mine  foreman.  If  this  unnecessary  feeling  of 
antagonism  could  be  eliminated  they  would  both  be  able  to  act 
with  a greater  degree  of  fairness. 

We  found  that  in  some  of  the  working  places  proper  care  had 
not  been  exercised  by  the  miners  in  propping  the  roof;  also  that 
in  some  instances  shots  had  been  placed  in  an  impracticable 
manner  which  had  resulted  in  timbers  being  unnecessarily 
blown  out,  and  as  a consequence  the  roof  had  fallen  in.  ' In 
determining  these  matters,  and  disputes  growing  out  of  them, 
in  the  Grape  Creek  and  Danville  districts,  during  the  balance 
of  the  scale  year  we  recommend  and  decide  that  the  following 
rules  be  observed: 

1st.  That  the  general  purpose  of  the  clause,  as  set  forth  in  the 
introduction  to  this  report,  be  kept  in  mind,  and  that  miners 
and  operators  alike  assume  their  respective  obligations  there- 
under in  a spirit  of  mutual  fairness  and  conciliation. 

2nd.  That  the  miners  must  use  good  judgment  in  order  to 
reduce  to  the  minimum  the  number  of  props  and  timbers  blown 
out. 

3rd.  That  the  miners  must  use  every  precaution  to  prevent 
falls  of  rock  by  placing  a sufficient  number  of  timbers  in  their 
working  places. 

4th.  That  whenever  it  is  shown  that  props  have  been  blown 
out  through  bad  judgment  or  because  of  an  impractical  man- 
ner of  placing  the  shots,  the  rock  must  be  cleaned  at  the  expense 
of  the  miner. 

5th.  That  where  a certain  amount  of  slate  or  rock  comes 
down  with  the  coal  in  the  usual  and  ordinary  course  of  mining 
and  timbering,  it  is  and  should  be  recognized  as  the  usual 
condition  in  that  place  or  room,  and  the  miner  shall  handle 
such  rock  or  slate  without  compensation  other  than  pay  for  the 
coal.  But  where  unusual  conditions  are  encountered,  such  as 
faults  or  rolls,  and  unusual  falls  of  rock  or  slate  result  in  spite  of 
proper  care  and  precaution  on  the  miner’s  part,  both  as  to 


31 


timbering  and  shooting,  the  company  shall  allow  the  miner 
extra  compensation  for  handling  such  rock  or  slate,  or  clean  it 
up  as  promptly  as  possible  with  company  men.  Or  in  case 
the  ordinary  conditions  of  any  room,  by  reason  of  an  excessive 
amount  of  rock  or  slate  coming  with  the  coal,  shall  be  such  that 
an  average  skilled  miner  cannot  make  a fair  day’s  wage,  then 
the  company  shall  allow  him  at  least  enough  to  make  up  that 
deficiency. 

Where  the  miner  feels  that  rock-falls  should  be  paid  for  or 
handled  by  the  company,  as  above  provided,  before  such  rock  is 
cleared,  the  mine  foreman  should  be  consulted  and  if  it  is  deter- 
mined that  the  miner  is  not  to  blame  and  that  he  is  to  clear 
such  rock  for  extra  compensation,  the  amount  he  is  to  receive 
shall  be  agreed  upon  in  advance. 

6th.  Should  the  miner  and  mine  foreman  fail  to  agree,  either 
as  to  the  responsibility  for  the  work  or  the  price  to  be  allowed 
in  case  the  responsibility  is  agreed  to  be  upon  the  company, 
then  the  pit  committee  shall  be  called  in.  If  the  pit  committee 
and  mine  foreman  fail  to  agree,  either  as  to  who  should  perform 
the  work,  or  as  to  the  price  (in  case  it  is  agreed  that  the  work 
devolves  upon  the  company)  to  be  paid  the  miner  for  clearing 
such  falls,  work  must  be  continued  and  the  question  referred  to 
the  sub-district  president  and  the  commissioner  of  the  Danville 
District  Coal  Operators  Association. 

7th.  The  miners  shall  shoot  their  coal  so  as  to  produce  as 
large  a percentage  of  marketable  lump  coal  as  is  consistent 
with  good  workmanship  and  practical  mining  skill. 

8th.  The  mine  foreman  shall,  in  all  cases,  furnish  miners  with  a 
sufficient  supply  of  timber  and  cap-pieces,  of  size  and  dimen- 
sions best  suited  for  the  protection  of  the  roof  in  the  working 
places. 

9th.  When  the  roof  falls  as  the  result  of  horsebacks,  rolls  or 
other  extraordinary  conditions,  as  more  particularly  defined  in 
the  5th  paragraph  above,  which  could  not  be  held  up  by  the 
exercise  of  care  and  good  judgment  on  the  part  of  the  miner, 
and  which  cannot  be  thrown  back  in  a reasonable  length  of  time, 
the  mine  foreman  shall  pay  the  miner  an  amount  consistent 
with  the  work  performed,  or  send  company  men  to  do  the  work. 

10th.  In  cases  where  timbers  are  blown  out  through  no  fault 
of  the  miner,  and  the  miner  can  show  this  to  have  been  the  case, 
and  where  the  indications  are  that  the  miner  has  used  good 
judgment,  falls  of  rock  resulting  therefrom  will  be  cleared  at 
the  expense  of  the  company. 

In  addition  to  the  foregoing  rules  we  would  recommend  in  a 
general  way  that  the  pit  committee  and  the  mine  foreman,  in 
considering  and  determining  questions  in  dispute,  treat  each 
other  courteously  and  make  an  honest  endeavor  to  reach  a 
conclusion  which  will  be  absolutely  equitable  and  fair  to  all 
parties  in  interest. 


32 


Where  a miner  feels  that  he  has  any  claim  on  the  company 
for  extra  compensation  on  account  of  any  rock  to  be  cleared  up, 
the  question  should  be  taken  up  at  once  and  adjusted  on  its 
merits  in  the  manner  above  set  forth,  and  the  mine  foreman 
should  make  a special  effort  to  see  that  such  claims  are  given 
prompt  and  fair  consideration.  But  the  mine  foreman 
should  not  give  any  miner  the  option  of  doing  such  work  with 
the  understanding  that  the  price  and  responsibility  therefor 
will  be  determined  afterwards,  as  this  is  certain  to  lead  to  con- 
tentions which  cannot  be  adjudicated  as  intelligently  and 
satisfactorily  as  is  possible  where  they  are  considered  before 
the  work  has  been  done.  In  settling  such  disputes  promptly 
the  mine  foreman  should  feel  free  to  call  in  the  pit  committee,  as 
they  are  the  duly  accredited  representatives  of  the  miners, 
to  act  for  them  at  all  times  in  such  matters. 

We  have  found  in  the  course  of  our  investigations  that  the 
present  methods  of  shearing  in  entries  are  generally  satisfactory 
to  both  miners  and  operators  of  the  Grape  Creek  and  Westville 
district,  and  therefore  assume  that  no  decision  on  this  point  is 
required  at  this  time.  Some  modifications  may  be  required  in 
the  present  system,  but  it  seems  to  us  likely  that  such  modifi- 
cations can  and  will  be  determined  locally  by  the  miners  and 
operators  interested. 

During  our  investigations,  statements  were  exhibited  by  some 
of  the  coal  producing  companies  showing  a very  marked  increase 
in  the  cost  of  dead  work — an  increase  that  is  not  justified  by  any 
of  the  terms  of  the  interstate,  State,  or  sub-district  agreements, 
and  if  this  is  the  result  of  local  demands,  the  practice  should  be 
discontinued.  One  of  these  statements  supplies  information 
covering  the  period  between  January,  1898,  and  April,  1901,  and 
shows  that  the  cost  of  dead  work  was  increased  in  this  one  mine 
from  less  than  3f  cents  per  ton  to  nearly  12  cents  per  ton.  Under 
such  conditions  it  is  easy  to  conclude  that  the  mine  and  miners 
must  soon  be  thrown  permanently  idle.  We  feel  confident  that 
at  any  mines  where  such  burdens  have  been  imposed  steps  will 
be  taken  at  once  to  afford  relief.  We  realize  the  responsibilities 
and  duties  which  have  been  imposed  upon  us,  as  well  as  the 
almost  utter  impossibility  of  giving  to  miners  and  operators  all 
that  each  could  desire,  but  we  confidently  believe  that  the  fore- 
going decision  is  designed  to  bring  about  much  needed  reforms, 
which,  when  inaugurated,  need  not  impose  any  hardship  upon 
either  operators  or  miners  who  sincerely  desire  to  do  right. 

In  conclusion,  we  earnestly  appeal  to  all  parties  in  interest  to 
proceed  to  apply  this  decision  in  a friendly  and  businesslike 
manner,  and  thus  avoid  friction  which  in  the  past  has  been- so 
disastrous  to  the  interests  of  both  mine  owners  and  mine  workers. 

John  Mitchell, 

National  President,  United  Mine  Workers  of  America. 

Herman  Justi, 

Commissioner,  The  Illinois  Coal  Operators  Association. 

33 


APPENDIX. 


PRESIDENT  JOHN  MITCHELL’S  APPEAL  TO  ILLINOIS 
MINERS  TO  CORRECT  ABUSES  OF  THE 
MINE-RUN  SYSTEM. 


The  following  letter  from  Mr.  John  Mitchell,  National  Presi- 
dent, United  Mine  Workers  of  America,  addressed  to  the 
officers  and  members  of  District  12,  explains  itself: 

OFFICE  NATIONAL  PRESIDENT, 

UNITED  MINE  WORKERS  OF  AMERICA. 

Indianapolis,  Ind.,  August  3,  1901. 
To  the  Officers  and  Members  of  District  12,  U.  M.  W.  of  A. 

Brothers: — I am  in  receipt  of  a communication  from  Mr. 
Herman  Justi,  Commissioner  of  the  Illinois  Coal  Operators 
Association,  which  is  so  vitally  important  to  the  interests  of  the 
mine  workers  of  that  state  and  also  to  the  mine  workers  of  the 
entire  country,  that  I deem  it  advisable  to  submit'  it  for  the 
consideration  of  all  local  unions  in  Illinois,  with  the  hope  that 
its  contents  will  receive  the  most  careful  attention. 

Commissioner  Justi ’s  communication  reads  as  follows: 

Chicago,  July  19,  1901. 
Mr.  John  Mitchell,  National  President, 

United  Mine  Workers  of  America,  Indianapolis,  Ind. 

Dear  Sir: — During  the  past  sixty  days  complaints  from  the 
coal  mine  operators  have  come  in  so  thick  and  fast,  of  the 
increased  screenings,  or  rather  of  the  deterioration  of  the  quality 
of  the  coal  produced  as  the  result  of  the  mine-run  system,  that  I 
feel  it  due  to  your  organization  and  to  ours  to  bring  the  facts  to 
your  attention.  A few  weeks  ago,  at  the  instance  of  our  Execu- 
tive Committee,  and  in  view  of  these  numerous  complaints, 
inquiries  were  sent  to  all  the  members  of  the  Illinois  Coal 
Operators  Association  asking  if,  under  our  current  State  agree- 
ment, any  improvement  was  noticeable  in  the  quality  of  the 
coal  produced.  To  our  sincere  regret  we  ascertained  that  no 
improvement  in  the  quality  of  the  mine-run  coal  was  noticeable, 
either  by  way  of  a decrease  in  the  proportion  of  fine  coal,  or  an 
improvement  in  the  quality  of  the  lump  coal.  In  fact,  no 
improvement  seems  noticeable  that  can  be  attributed  to  an 

34 


improvement  of  mining  methods.  On  the  contrary,  in  many 
mines  there  has  been  a considerable  increase  in  the  proportion  of 
fine  coal  since  April  1st.  We  have  reports  from  nearly  all  the 
larger  operators  in  the  nine  scale  districts  of  the  State,  and  the 
burden  of  their  testimony  is  that  there  is  no  improvement  in  the 
methods  of  mining,  and  consequently  no  decrease  in  the  pro- 
portion of  fine  coal,  and  no  improvement  whatever  in  the 
quality  of  the  lump  coal.  Things  have  grown  worse  instead 
of  better. 

In  the  shooting  mines  there  is  still  the  same  tendency  to 
overshoot  the  coal,  that  prevailed  under  our  previous  agree- 
ments, and  the  use  of  powder  at  a low  price  is  a temptation 
which  the  men  have  not  been  able  to  resist.  You  need  not  be 
reminded  that  the  operators  complained  of  this  excessive  use  of 
powder  at  our  several  State  conventions  and  in  all  of  our  joint 
meetings  that  have  taken  place  since  the  interstate  movement 
was  inaugurated.  In  many  instances  the  reports  to  this  office 
show  clearly  that  large  consumers  of  coal  have  complained  as 
never  before  of  the  inferior  quality  of  coal  produced  in  the 
State  of  Illinois.  I have  myself  visited  every  scale  district  in 
the  State,  and  while  there  is  less  friction  than  formerly  prevailed 
between  the  coal  operators  and  coal  miners,  and  while  I am 
satisfied  that  the  relations  between  the  employer  and  employee 
are  more  cordial  than  ever  before,  still  I find  that  everywhere 
the  complaint  is  made  that  the  quality  of  coal  produced  under 
the  mine-run  system  has  steadily  deteriorated. 

At  the  time  Illinois  adopted  the  mine-run  system  the  coal 
operators  of  the  State  were  assured  that  the  mine-run  system 
would  make  better  miners,  which  would  result  in  a better 
quality  of  coal  being  produced.  I sincerely  regret  to  say  that 
this  promise  has  not  been  fulfilled — as  the  results  conclusively 
prove;  for  no  one  can  dispute  the  fact,  whether  on  the  side  of 
operators  or  of  miners,  that  the  quality  of  coal  produced  at  the 
time  the  mine-run  system  was  adopted  became  bad,  and  has 
gradually  but  surely  grown  worse  from  year  to  year.  It  is  due 
to  the  officials  of  the  State  organization,  and  I believe  also  to  the 
officers  of  the  local  unions-generally,  to  say  that  an  honest  effort 
has  been  made  to  correct  the  abuses  of  which  the  operators 
complain;  but  as  yet  they  have  been  powerless  to  produce  the 
desired  change,  and  their  efforts,  besides  being  vain,  have 
tended  to  make  them  unpopular  with  a few  men  at  every  min- 
ing camp,  whose  chief  mission  in  life,  it  seems,  is  to  give  trouble. 
This  state  of  affairs  seems  to  me  most  deplorable,  and  dis- 
couraging in  the  extreme,  for  the  reason  that  mine  labor  is 
nowhere  else  so  well  paid  or  so  well  organized  as  in  the  State  of 
Illinois.  For  this  reason,  if  for  no  other,  it  seems  to  me  that 
your  National  organization  owes  it  to  itself  to  go  to  the  bottom 
of  this  whole  matter  and  to  spare  no  effort  to  prove  that  organ- 
ized labor  can  produce  the  beneficial  results  for  capital,  for 


35 


labor,  and  for  the  general  public  which  its  advocates  claim  is 
its  mission.  I believe  a large  majority  of  the  miners  have 
desired  to  correct  the  abuses  which  have  brought  discredit  upon 
your  organization,  but  unfortunately  they  allow  themselves  to 
be  dominated  by  a few  mischief-makers  who  are  constantly 
seeking  to  discredit  every  miner  who  tries  to  do  his  duty  by 
giving  the  best  service  of  which  he  is  capable  in  return  for  the 
wages  he  receives.  These  mischief-makers  are  in  the  habit, 
where  they  find  a miner  doing  something  that  they  believe  he 
can  escape  doing,  but  which  under  our  agreements  he  should  do, 
of  discouraging  or  intimidating  him,  and  of  telling  him  that  he  is 
giving  more  than  our  joint  agreements  contemplate. 

Is  it  not  high  time  to  begin  to  expel  men  from  yo\ir  organiza- 
tion who  refuse  to  comply  with  the  terms  of  our  several  agree- 
ments? If  this  is  done  it  will  be  necessary  to  expel  only  a few, 
because  in  a State  like  Illinois,  where  the  coal  miners  are  so 
solidly  organized,  it  will  be  impossible  for  such  men  to  obtain 
employment  elsewhere  after  having  been  expelled  from  your 
union.  Should  you  ask  me,  as  I have  been  frequently  asked: 
“Why  do  we  not  discharge  such  offenders? ” I will  reply  that  it 
is  well  nigh  impossible  to  discharge  a miner  in  Illinois  mines 
without  laying  the  mine  idle  in  which  the  offender  has  been 
employed.  To  discharge  a member  of  your  union  for  any  cause 
gives  offense,  even  when  his  offense  is  admitted,  which  the 
miners  very  generally  resent.  This  being  the  case,  your  organiza- 
tion must  find  the  remedy  for  our  trouble,  the  owners  of  the 
mines  themselves  being  powerless  to  act. 

I need  not  remind  you  that  in  our  recent  interstate  convention 
at  Columbus  an  effort  was  made  by  your  organization  to  bring 
the  other  States  now  parties  to  the  interstate  movement  to  the 
favorable  terms  and  conditions  that  had  been  obtained  for  the 
miners  in  the  State  of  Illinois.  In  this  effort  your  organization 
failed,  and  I am  confident  this  was  due  to  a knowledge  on  the 
part  of  the  Pennsylvania,  Ohio  and  Indiana  operators  of  the 
abuse  of  the  mine-run  system  in  Illinois,  for  it  is  an  admitted  fact 
that  this  pernicious  practice  of  producing  inferior  coal  in  Illinois 
has  given  to  our  competitors  an  argument  which  they  have 
successfully  used  to  induce  consumers  of  coal  to  buy  coal  not 
produced  in  this  State,  and  which  accounts  for  a steady  and 
discouraging  decline  in  our  competitive  business. 

In  view  of  all  the  advantages  that  have  been  gained  by  you 
to  advance  the  interests  of  the  miners  in  the  State  of  Illinois,  and 
in  view  of  the  fact  that  the  conditions  for  the  miners  in  this 
State  are  more  favorable  than  they  are  in  any  of  the  other  States, 
I am  at  a loss  to  understand  why  the  Illinois  operators  should  be 
discriminated  against  by  the  rank  and  file  of  your  organization. 

You  well  know  that  the  very  foundations  of  the  interstate 
movement  rest  upon  the  principle  of  uniformity,  and  yet 
uniformity  not  only  does  not  exist,  but  it  seems  a long  way  off. 


36 


As  evidence  of  this,  I desire  to  call  your  attention  to  the  latest 
agreement  entered  into  between  your  organization  and  the 
coal  operators  of  another  State.  I refer  to  the  recent  joint 
agreement  of  the  coal  miners  and  coal  operators  of  Kansas. 
Section  3 of  that  agreement  is  as  follows: 

“That  the. companies  signing  this  agreement  reserve  the  right 
“to  discharge  any  miner  or  miners  whose  net  ton  of  2,000 
“pounds  of  mine-run  coal  will  not  yield  the  same  percentage  of 
“lump  coal  as  that  produced  when  the  mine  was  operated  on  a 
“screened  coal  basis.  ” 

Where  is  this  injustice  and  discrimination  to  end?  When  may 
we  expect  fair  treatment?  How  soon  will  Illinois  coal  miners 
give  us  the  best  service  of  which  they  are  capable  in  return  for 
the  maximum  of  wages  which  they  receive  and  the  favorable 
conditions  which  they  now  enjoy?  I sincerely  hope  they  will 
act  and  act  wisely  before  our  competitive  business  has  been 
thoroughly  and  hopelessly  demoralized.  If  protection  can  be 
given  to  Kansas  coal  operators  such  as  is  afforded  in  the  clause 
of  their  State  agreement  to  which  I have  referred  above,  why 
should  it  be  denied  to  the  coal  operators  of  Illinois?  Have  we 
been  slow  to  recognize  your  organization  or  to  concede  your 
demands? 

To  me  it  seems  that  unless  improvement  comes  very  soon, 
such  a clause  as  the  one  in  the  Kansas  joint  agreement  must  be 
inserted  in  our  future  agreements,  or  else  we  will  be  forced  in 
self-defense  to  go  back  to  the  double  standard  absolutely;  for  no 
other  alternative  will  be  left  us. 

Speaking  for  myself  personally,  I want  to  say  frankly  that  I 
believe  in  organized  labor,  just  as  I believe  in  the  organization 
of  the  employer  class,  confident  that  if  both  are  properly  and 
wisely  organized  the  best  results  for  the  public  at  large  will  be 
secured,  and  I have  so  expressed  myself  unhesitatingly  in 
private  and  in  public.  Still,  if  the  coal  operators  of  Illinois  are 
to  be  thus  discriminated  against,  it  would  be  the  height  of  folly 
for  the  Illinois  Coal  Operators  Association  to  enter  another 
interstate  convention.  In  my  opinion  the  whole  labor  problem 
is  only  a business  problem;  it  is  a problem  that  affects  not  only 
labor  and  the  employer  of  labor,  but,  more  than  both  of  these,  it 
affects  more  closely  the  general  public— which  we  expect  and 
desire  shall  deal  both  with  the  employer  of  labor  and  with  labor 
itself.  If  the  general  public  is  to  be  thus  served,  if  it  is  to  be  thus 
punished  because  the  employer  of  labor  recognizes  organized 
labor,  which  promises  so  much  for  the  general  good,  and  accom- 
plishes so  little,  the, outlook  is  gloomy  in  the  extreme.  I need 
not  assure  you  that  no  one  more  than  myself  regrets  the  apparent 
failure  of  the  joint  movement  into  which  the  coal  operators  and 
the  coal  miners  of  the  four  states  to  the  interstate  agreement 
entered  some  years  ago,  for  I believe  that  movement  to  be  one  of 
the  wisest  and  the  most  beneficent  that  the  ingenuity  of  man  has 

37 


thus  far  devised  for  the  promotion  of  harmony  in  the  industrial 
world;  provided,  however,  that  the  promises  and  pledges  of  its 
promoters  can  be  fulfilled..  But  a good  and  great  movement  like 
this  one  is  easily  destroyed  unless  the  principles  underlying  it 
are  supported  and  sustained  by  the  honesty  and  intelligence  of 
all  the  parties  to  it;  and  my  object  in  writing  to  you  thus  freely 
and  fully  is  prompted  by  a desire  to  co-operate  with  you  to  the 
end  that  the  purposes  of  our  joint  movement  may  be  accom- 
plished, and  so  prolong  the  life  of  that  movement  for  an  indefi- 
nite period. 

Just  how  I may  best  co-operate  with  you  and  your  associates,  I 
would  be  glad  to  have  you  indicate.  I myself  am  unable  to  say 
exactly  what  should  be  done.  But  one  thing  is  certain,  and  that 
is  that  the  percentage  of  screenings  in  Illinois  must  be  reduced 
and  that  the  general  quality  of  the  output  of  our  mines  must  be 
improved.  Unless  this  is  done  “chaos  will  come  again,  ” and  the 
situation  in  Illinois  will,  I fear,  be  worse  than  ever  before  known. 

Give  this  matter  your  serious  consideration  and  let  me  have 
your  views  as  to  the  best  plan  to  correct  the  evils  of  which  we 
complain,  at  your  earliest  convenience. 

With  great  respect,  I am, 

Very  sincerely  yours, 

Herman  Justi, 

Commissioner. 


You  will  observe  that  Mr.  Justi,  speaking  for  the  Illinois 
Coal  Operators  Association,  complains  bitterly  against  the 
quality  of  coal  which  is  being  produced  in  that  state,  and  says,  in 
effect,  that  the  operators  of  Illinois  cannot  be  expected  to 
participate  in  future  interstate  joint  conventions  unless  a better 
grade  of  coal  is  mined. 

In  connection  with  this  subject  I desire  to  say  that  from  time 
immemorial  the  miners  of  our  country  have  fought  and  struggled 
for  the  abolition  of  the  pernicious  system  of  paying  for  coal  after 
it  has  been  screened.  It  has  been  the  constant  claim  of  the 
officers  of  your  union,  both  in  conventions  and  elsewhere,  that 
the  adoption  of  the  run-of-mine,  or  gross-weight,  system  would 
remove  the  causes  of  countless  strikes,  and  would  tend  to  elevate 
the  standard  of  workmanship  among  our  craftsmen ; and  if  these 
results  have  not  been  secured  in  Illinois,  I have  no  hesitancy 
whatever  in  saying  that  our  run-of-mine  system  cannot  be 
maintained  should  opportunity  to  return  to  the  old  screened-coal 
system  present  itself  to  the  operators. 


38 


Permit  me  also  to  remind  the  miners  of  Illinois  that  four  of  the 
jmost  important  coal-producing  States  are  still  working  under  a 
[double  standard;  and  our  only  hope  of  ever  being  able  to  secure, 
‘by  agreement,  the  single  run-of-mine  system  in  Indiana,  Ohio 
jand  western  Pennsylvania,  lies  in  our  ability  to  prove  to  the 
^operators  that  the  run-of-mine  system  in  Illinois  has  not  lowered 
the  standard  of  workmanship  or  deteriorated  the  value  of  the 
jcoal  produced  there.  If  we  are  able  to  prove  in  the  next 
(interstate  joint  convention  that  the  quality  of  the  coal  produced 
jin  Illinois  and  the  standard  of  workmanship  among  the  miners 
!has  been  improved,  I am  confident  that  we  shall  be  able  to 
forever  wipe  out  of  existence,  in  other  States,  the  method  of 
paying  for  coal  after  it  has  been  screened. 

| On  the  other  hand,  permit  me  to  remind  you  that  the  Illinois 
jrniners  and  operators  cannot  hope  to  retain  the  trade  which 
broperly  belongs  to  them  unless  the  same  conditions  of  mining 
jvhich  prevail  in  Illinois  are  extended  to  the  States  of  Indiana, 
Ohio  and  Western  Pennsylvania;  and  I am  sure  that  it  must  be 
ftianifest  to  every  thoughtful  miner  in  Illinois  that  it  would  be 
disastrous  if,  through  lack  of  proper  gare  in  the  production  of 
,poal,  the  trade  which  belongs  to  them  were  driven  into  other 
'listricts.  It  seems  to  me  that  in  view  of  the  many  hardships 
(endured  by  the  Illinois  miners  in  establishing  the  run-of-mine 
system,  it  would  be  a calamity  indeed  were  they  to  lose  it  now,  or 
pe  compelled  to  strike  for  its  maintenance;  and  I do  not  know  of 
jany  circumstance  which  would  be  more  injurious  to  the  United 
jVtine  Workers  of  America  as  a whole  than  to  have  the  Operators 
Association  withdraw  from  the  interstate  movement;  because,  if 
che  Illinois  operators  were  to  withdraw  it  would  necessarily 
follow  that  other  States  would  do  likewise,  and  we  should  again 
jreturn  to  the  old  method  of  strikes  and  lockouts  which  proved  so 
<jiisastrous  to  the  welfare  of  our  craftsmen  in  the  years  which  have 
,>one  by.  It  is,  therefore,  absolutely  necessary  that  the  members 
pf  our  local  unions  exercise  every  precaution  in  producing  as 
] arge  a percentage  of  marketable  lump  coal  as  is  consistent  with 
good  workmanship ; and  if  there  are  in  your  local  union  men  who 
jwill  not  observe  the  true  spirit  of  trades  unionism,  it  is  the  duty  of 
every  loyal  member  of  our  organization  to  see  that  they  are 
properly  disciplined.  If  trades  unionism  means  anything,  it 


39 


means  good  workmanship  in  return  for  good  wages;  it  means  the 
closest  possible  compliance  with  our  agreements;  and  I sincerely 
hope  and  trust  that  eyery  member  of  the  United  Mine  Workers 
will  do  his  full  share  to  correct  the  abuses  complained  of  in  the 
communication  from  Mr.  Justi.  I am, 

Yours  fraternally, 

JOHN  MITCHELL, 

President  U.  M.  W.  of  A. 


40 


r 


L. 


UNIVERSITY  OF  ILLINOIS-URBANA 


12  06287032 


